Pete Olcott
2018-02-10 17:03:06 UTC
That {Cats are Animals} formally: "Cats ⊆
Animals" is a "given" Analytical Fact.
Just for laughs I observe that not all cats are animals.Animals" is a "given" Analytical Fact.
I have several terra-cotta cats around the house and one
little bronze one (of Egyptian ilk).
More seriously - I think this kind of flaw is involved in
EVERY alleged "analytic fact" (excluding the mathematical
sort if you are inclined to include it).
has its own 128-bit GUID so there would be no ambiguity between a {cat}
and a {representation} of a {cat}.
http://www.cyc.com/documentation/ontologists-handbook/writing-efficient-cycl/cycl-representation-choices/
Only 128-bits for all concepts???
If you are the same guy that I have spoken with on sci.langyou would of course be aware of the principle of compositionality.
128 bits is plenty enough for the entire set of semantic atoms.
here.
Anyway you said all concepts not all atoms.
All (natural and formal language) concepts are comprised of semantic atoms.
A semantic atom is a single formal language Relation.
A semantic sub atomic particle is the constituent parts of this single formal language Relation.
This is an elaboration of my semantic subatomic compositionality.
Ideas are expressed more succinctly.
Copyright 2016, 2017, 2018 Pete Olcott
Natural languages are not compositional so your definitions make
no linguistic sense.
no linguistic sense.
--
*∀X True(X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ Axioms Provable(Γ, X) *
*∀X True(X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ Axioms Provable(Γ, X) *