Re: ONTSUO: 03 Jun 2002 -- Curious, Yellow
On 6/3/02 21:44, "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu> wrote:
> Having made the hopelessly naive mistake of actually trying to read
> the SUMO documents again, I tried to get some clarification as to
> how SUMO set theory compared with its claimed ancestor or indeed
> any standard set theory. The SUMO representatives, along with
> an assortment of strange bedfellows, ignored the question,
> then changed the subject, then suggested that the new
> subject be marginalized to the Ontology Sublist.
> If it were the first time I had seen this
> strategy, I would probably be shocked.
> As it is, I am only surprised at the
> conspiracy of interests that arose
> on all sides to avoid the issue.
> I am working on a hypothesis.
No hypothesis needed, Jon. I remember I'm one of those who you named as a
"strange bedfellow" along with John Sowa.
I will say again what I said then. In a practical exercise, as SUO is
supposed to be, an ontology of mathematics deserves the same priority as an
ontology of mind, beliefs, or thirdnesses - that is LOW. There is a lot of
work to do without worrying about these things. Surely, set theory plays a
role in the background of the logic if you like FOL, as category theory does
if you like what IFF is trying to do. The key term is BACKGROUND - none of
this ought to be the subject matter focus of the SUO at this point in time.
If you want sets in SUO, then either accept the set theory that SUMO offers,
create one of your own (you'll have to give axioms), or do what John Sowa
recommends and provide and/or contribute to a framework in which your
favorite set theory has a happy home - maybe this is IFF.
Please stop clogging this list up with your rantings and conspiracy theories
that neither I nor most of the participants care the least about.
.bill