On Apr 30, 2:00 pm, me <me154...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 4:40 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 30, 12:47 pm, me <me154...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 30, 3:29 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 29, 1:30 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > > > > On 4/28/2013 9:36 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > the problem with mereology is it uses ALL(S) quantifier > > > > > > and C (subset) to co-define each other.. > > > > > > That is a nice observation Herc. > > > > > > The only problem is that the foundational > > > > > investigations for mathematics have a historical > > > > > context. > > > > > > What is correct about mereology is that it is > > > > > consistent with Leibniz. In analyzing the notion > > > > > of class, Lesniewski concluded that the existential > > > > > import of a class and its constituents is > > > > > simultaneous. In describing the difference, he > > > > > explained the notion as intensional and contrasted > > > > > it with the extensional logic of a Fregean or a > > > > > Russellian approach. > > > > > > In like fashion, Leibniz contrasted his notion > > > > > of logic with the extensional Scholastic logic. > > > > > In this respect Leibniz' logic is also intensional > > > > > for a different reason. In Leibniz' case, the sense > > > > > of the syllogistic hierarchy had been characterized > > > > > by informational complexity. In other words, a genus > > > > > is part of a species because more information is needed > > > > > to specify a species than that of the genus with which > > > > > it is associated. > > > > > > It is an unfortunate fact that most of modern > > > > > foundational mathematics is overly influenced by > > > > > Russell without questioning Russell's philosophy. > > > > > > For what this is worth, Cantor rejected the "extension > > > > > of a concept" formulation used by Frege and Russell. > > > > > In fact, Cantor's notion of sets involves a "theory > > > > > of ones" approach which suggests a Leibnizian view > > > > > of individuation. > > > > > > I would argue that the problem with the received > > > > > paradigm is that the sign of equality is improperly > > > > > characterized. Leibniz' original introduction of > > > > > the principle of identity of indiscernibles involves > > > > > geometric intuitions not represented in the logicist > > > > > framework of Frege and Russell. > > > > > > Your criticism of mereology will be believed by those > > > > > who have not pursued what the original sources have > > > > > written. And, it will be respected by me because of > > > > > its insight. It is, however, a statement that does > > > > > not question the alternative which is equally nonsensical. > > > > > > Analytical philosophy is based on one thing -- avoid epistemology > > > > > at all costs. When one denies that position, there are > > > > > not many choices, > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma > > > . > > . > > . > > > For those who didn't read the link... > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma > > > The Münchhausen Trilemma (after Baron Münchhausen, who allegedly > > pulled himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a swamp by > > his own hair), > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > > > > TODAY! > > > > > Ponytail stunt ends in death > > > > A daredevil stuntman has died while attempting to cross a river using > > > > just his ponytail. > > > > >http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/world/16933347/Ponytail-stunt... > > > > > That answers that question! > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > > VERY NEXT DAY! Check the Yankee Uniform on this guy! > > >http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/world/16933347/Ponytail-stunt/ > > > Same as the guy in the Wiki picture!! > > > COINCIDENCE! > > . > > . > > . > > . > > > > > Herc > > > > -- > > > > www.,BLoCKPROLOG.com > > > > I am actually a different species, you guys are racists amongst each > > > other! you know what that means > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JdWayrLXUs > > > Herc > > well, thanks to your tip off 'us invisible 'we'' if you like a > romantic sci fi reference think the 'Q' have already solved a debate > about the nature of new databased techniques and the problems of > integration between modern formulae and ancient stuff ...so Herc! ta ! > X Hugs >
You have been paying attention!
The problem I had last year is how does PROLOG generate code as it solves queries..
vert (pnt(X,Y) , pnt(X,Z)). // A Vertical Point checker
?- vert( pnt( 2 , 3 ) , P )
This is where PROLOG is really clever...
P = pnt( 2 , _ )
it writes functions! along with all the other computing fundamentals UNIFY() can do!.
My system at BlockProlog will probably output the TABLE
VERT PNT 2 3 P vert pnt 2 3 pnt 2 Z
so it can be used like SQL with TABULAR OUTPUT..
that was PROLOGs undoing where SQL was better.
> > get on with what you like, so soooorrry that you have found that > formula to fame..kinda pithy interfering choices there, huh? as I say > I 'copped out'.. maybe you are made of stringer stuff. By the way > MindPixels stuff was rooted with any old Tate brother someplace..where > did you get your 'push' , huh? I have a guess about that and you are > safest, and a hell of a lot safer than old Mindpixels
Databases are old hat... PROLOG added too much fruit in 1972 (List Processing to handle multiple results) and SQL became popular instead which is really only a 3 1/2 GL. Fetch Queries..
but it's WHAT YOU PROGRAM in the Database that is interesting! And I haven't even started there...
More money in MMP computer games than anywhere else for new software tech.