Eric B> ! avoid 3 Dim because unstable ... Four is perfect, unless not
"commutative" ... For "dimensions", infinity is quite too much
For any specific application, it's usually best to use whatever is
appropriate. And I agree that most people who use an ontology never think
about or worry about proofs in any dimension.
But please read the article I cited. It shows that the general case
(infinity) includes all the special cases as subtypes. Furthermore, it
also shows that proofs for the general case (infinity) are often simpler
than proofs for any of the special cases.
This fact is important for the people who are defining general principles
for ontology. The people who just work on specific problems never need to
worry about the proofs. But they do need assurance that the people who
define the general case know what they're doing.
John
ACM has now made all their publications from 1951 to 2000 freely available.
They plan to make more available in the next 5 years.
John
----------------------------------
ACM has opened the articles published during the first 50 years of its publishing program. These articles, published between 1951 and the end of 2000, are now open and freely available to view and download via the ACM Digital Library.
ACM's first 50 years backfile contains more than 117,500 articles on a wide range of computing topics. In addition to articles published between 1951 and 2000, ACM has also opened related and supplemental materials including data sets, software, slides, audio recordings, and videos.
"We at ACM are especially proud to make this announcement now as we celebrate the 75th anniversary of our organization," said ACM President Gabriel Kotsis. "ACM has published many of the foundational works by pioneers of the computing field, and we are delighted to share this treasure trove with the world. And in doing so, we take another large step in our evolution to become a fully open access publisher."
Making the first 50 years of its publications and related content freely available expresses ACM's commitment to open access publication and represents another milestone in our transition to full open access within the next five years.
Alex, Matteo, Igor, Lists,
A one-dimensional structure is often an awkward approximation to some
n-dimensional structure. For example, C. S. Peirce invented the
one-dimensional notation for predicate calculus (which Peano modified by
introducing letters drawn upside-down and backwards). But he later
simplified and generalized the notation with graphs, which can be drawn in
two dimensions. But they are even simpler in three or more dimensions,
when they avoid issues about cross-overs.
More recently, category theory has been generalized to "infinity
categories". Infinity may sound complex, but it is actually simpler
because it removes many details that depend on some specific number N. The
proofs are often simpler when many of the details can be ignored.
For an introduction to infinity mathematics, see the recent article in
the Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/infinity-category-theory-offers-a
-birds-eye-view-of-mathematics1/
Application to ontology: Nearly everything we deal with in our daily
lives involves processes in three dimensions plus time. The linear
definitions in language and logic are usually drastically oversimplified
approximations. The logic may seem to be precise, but that precision is
often an illusion.
As Lord Kelvin said, "Better a rough answer to the right question than an
exact answer to the wrong question."
John
*ICCS 2022: 27th International Conference on Conceptual Structures*
Münster, Germany, September 12-15, 2022
Conference website: https://iccs-conference.org/
Abstract registration: March 25 (was: March 11, 2022)
Submission deadline: April 1 (was: March 18, 2022)
The International Conferences on Conceptual Structures (ICCS) focus on
the formal analysis and representation of conceptual knowledge, at the
crossroads of artificial intelligence, human cognition, computational
linguistics, and related areas of computer science and cognitive
science. The ICCS conferences evolved from a series of seven annual
workshops on conceptual graphs, starting with an informal gathering
hosted by John F. Sowa in 1986. Recently, graph-based knowledge
representation and reasoning (KRR) paradigms are getting more and more
attention. With the rise of quasi-autonomous AI, graph-based
representations provide a vehicle for making machine cognition
explicit to its human users.
Submissions are invited on significant, original, and previously
unpublished research on the formal analysis and representation of
conceptual knowledge in artificial intelligence (AI). All papers will
receive mindful and rigorous reviews that will provide authors with
useful critical feedback. The aim of the ICCS 2022 conference is to
build upon its long-standing expertise in graph-based KRR and focus on
providing modelling, formal and application results of graph-based
systems. The conference welcomes contributions that address
graph-based representation and reasoning paradigms (e.g. Bayesian
Networks (BNs), Semantic Networks (SNs), RDF(S), Conceptual Graphs
(CGs), Formal Concept Analysis (FCA), CP-Nets, GAI-Nets, Graph
Databases, Diagrams, Knowledge Graphs, Semantic Web, etc.) from a
modelling, theoretical and application viewpoint.
*Topics*
Topics include but are not limited to:
- Existential and Conceptual Graphs
- Graph-based models for human reasoning
- Social network analysis
- Formal Concept Analysis
- Conceptual knowledge acquisition
- Data and Text mining
- Human and machine reasoning under inconsistency
- Human and machine knowledge representation and uncertainty
- Automated decision-making and argumentation
- Preferences
- Contextual logic
- Ontologies
- Knowledge architecture and management
- Semantic Web, Web of Data, Web 2.0
- Conceptual structures in natural language processing and linguistics
- Metaphoric, cultural or semiotic considerations
- Constraint satisfaction
- Resource allocation and agreement technologies
- Philosophical, neural, and didactic investigations of conceptual,
graphical representations
*Submission Information*
We invite scientific papers of up to fourteen pages, short
contributions up to eight pages. Papers must be formatted according to
Springer’s LNCS style guidelines and not exceed the page limit. Papers
will be subject to double-blind peer review, in which the reviewers do
not know the author’s identity, and the submission should be done via
EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=iccs20220). All
paper submissions will be refereed and authors will have the
opportunity to respond to reviewers’ comments during the rebuttal
phase. Accepted papers will be included in the conference proceedings,
published by Springer in the LNCS/LNAI series. At least one author of
each accepted paper must register for the conference and present the
paper there. Proceedings will be submitted for indexation by DBLP.
*Review Process*
Papers will be subject to double blind peer review in which the
reviewers do not know the author’s identity. In order to make blind
reviewing possible, authors must omit their names and affiliations
from the paper. Also, while the references should not include
unpublished work. When referring to one’s own work, use the third
person rather than the first person. Such identifying information can
be added back to the final camera-ready version of accepted
papers. Similarly, reviewers should not reveal their identities within
the paper reviews. The review process will include the opportunity for
authors to see the reviews of their papers and to respond to technical
questions raised by the reviewers before discussion starts within the
Program Committee. The decision of the Program Committee will be final
and cannot be appealed.
*Program Committee (tentative)*
- Simon Andrews – Sheffield Hallam University
- Moulin Bernard – Laval University
- Peggy Cellier – IRISA/INSA Rennes
- Peter Chapman – Edinburgh Napier University
- Madalina Croitoru – LIRMM, Univ. Montpellier II
- Licong Cui – The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
- Harry Delugach – University of Alabama in Huntsville
- Florent Domenach – Akita International University
- Dominik Endres – University of Marburg
- Jérôme Euzenat – INRIA & Univ. Grenoble Alpes
- Catherine Faron Zucker – Université Nice Sophia Antipolis
- Marcel Gehrke – University of Lübeck
- Raji Ghawi – Technical University of Munich
- Ollivier Haemmerlé – IRIT, Univ. Toulouse le Mirail
- Tom Hanika – Knowledge and Data Engineering, University of Kassel
- Nathalie Hernandez – IRIT
- Dmitry Ignatov – National Research University Higher School of Economics
- Adil Kabbaj – INSEA
- Hamamache Kheddouci – Universit Claude Bernard
- Léonard Kwuida – Bern University of Applied Sciences
- Jérôme Lang – CNRS, LAMSADE, Université Paris-Dauphine
- Natalia Loukachevitch – Research Computing Center of Moscow State University
- Philippe Martin – UEA2525 LIM, Uni. of La Réunion
- Franck Michel – Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, I3S
- Amedeo Napoli – LORIA Nancy (CNRS - Inria - Université de Lorraine)
- Sergei Obiedkov – National Research University Higher School of Economics
- Nathalie Pernelle – LIPN, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord
- Simon Polovina – Sheffield Hallam University
- Sebastian Rudolph – TU Dresden
- Christian Sacarea – Babes-Bolyai University
- Fatiha Saïs – LRI (Paris Sud University &CNRS8623), Paris Saclay University
- Gerd Stumme – University of Kassel
- Srdjan Vesic – CRIL, CNRS – Univ. Artois
- Guoqiang Zhang – UTHealth
- Diana Șotropa – Babes-Bolyai University
*Organizing committee*
- Tanya Braun – University of Münster (General Chair)
- Diana Cristea – Babeș-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca (Program Chair)
- Robert Jäschke – Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (Program Chair)
Hello CG-ers,
I am consider Prolog+CG as a tool to author an Interactive Fiction.
Iam puzzled by the following Prolog+CG answer.
Universal > Warrior, Weapon.
Warrior > Jedi, Trooper, Machine, Sith.
Weapon > Light_saber, Blaster_gun, Mega_laser.
Machine = Battle_droid, Super_battle_droid, Cyclopedus.
[Machine:Cyclopedus]-
-armed_with->[Mega_laser],
-protected_by1->[Machine:Super_battle_droid]-quantity->[Integer = 14],
-protected_by2->[Machine:Battle_droid]-
-quantity->[Integer = 10],
-armed_with->[Blaster_gun].
When requested :
?- M -quantity-> I.
The only answer is :
{M=[Machine : Super_battle_droid], I=[Integer = 14]}
Why {M=[Machine : Battle_droid], I=[Integer = 10]} is not another
correct answer ?
Regards,
- damien
Azamat,
There is nothing to discuss. AI is an engineering discipline. It is not
a branch of science or philosophy, but it can benefit from any results from
any branch of philosophy or science. Since metaphysics is a branch of
philosophy and AI is disjoint from philosophy, AI is disjoint from
metaphysics. As for the ontology of AI, whenever AI engineers build
something, an ontologist can assign it a place in any catalog of existing
things.
However, philosophy can be used at the metalevel to study and analyze any
subject whatever. Since metaphysics is the metalevel analysis of any
physical phenomena, it can be used to analyze any kind of physical system
developed by AI engineers.
In any subject whatever, many of the practitioners study, analyze, and
comment on the methods and results of other practitioners. When they do
that, they are doing metaphysics. C. S. Peirce (1887) was one of the first
metaphysicians who wrote about logic machines and what they can do. Even
earlier, Ada Lovelace wrote a metaphysical analysis of Babbage's machines.
Both Peirce and Lovelace were metaphysicians who contributed to the
metaphysics of AI. Alan Turing was another major contributor. Marvin
Minsky and John McCarthy were early contributors to the metaphysics of AI,
and they continued their analyses until they died in the early 21st c.
Their methods of analysis and evaluation are just as useful today as they
ever were.
That's all there is to say about the classification. But there is a huge
amount of work to do by metaphysicians of AI, who may also be engineers of
AI. But it's important to keep the two subjects distinct. And the
distinction between them was very clear to Peirce and Lovelace as it was
Turing, Minsky, and McCarthy. There is no reason to blur that
distinction.
John
----------------------------------------
From: "Azamat Abdoullaev" <ontopaedia(a)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 6:17 AM
To: "ontolog-forum" <ontolog-forum(a)googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Is AI Metaphysics/Real Ontology?
I thought it might be a lively topic to discuss.
https://www.quora.com/Is-artificial-intelligence-metaphysics/answer/Kiryl-Pe
rsianov?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=32249760381#
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Lyle
I have my old photocopy of a 1973 Bantam edition and see that I have
underlined a good deal in, among other places, Ch 12, and ...'the
world we know is constructed in order [and thus in such a way as to
be able] to see itself]. [ch 12, p 105].
And of course, the construction and the 'seeing itself' operate
within the existence of Forms- but the Forms emerge within/as a
triadic function. That is, the world doesn't operate within the
mechanical dyadic reduction of Observer/Observed, but as noted, the
observer is part of the Form. In Peirce, this relation is one of
mediation , where input data is mediated by the laws within the
'recipient/observer'...to result in a transformation of this input
data to an output 'interpretant'. That is, hydrogen and oxygen
molecules [input] are mediated by the laws-of-physics/chemistry
[observer] to transform into a water molecule.
I also refer to Spencer Brown's 'imaginary' which I compare with
Peirce's mode of Thirdness, i.e., non-local, not-actualized
rules-of-organization.
As for complex adaptive systems, and self-organization - it's a
huge field- and I've used many references in the past.
Edwina
On Sun 16/01/22 6:13 PM , lylephone(a)cox.net sent:
Edwina,
Given your objective, you will find the fundamental source of "the
triad" in the Laws of Form, which ends with the statement: "We see
now that the first distinction, the mark, and the observer are not
only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical." For the answer
to the question of how "self-organizing", i.e., living systems work
you really should start with Illobrand von Ludwiger's monogram on
"The New Worldview of the Physicist Burkhard Heim." Yes, the
mathematics is extremely difficult, but Heim was as good or maybe
better that Einstein in giving a general, but intelligent, audience
explanation of his theory. Von Ludwiger does an outstanding job in
pulling it all together.
One of the things I told the folks on another forum is that whenever
you see the word "tensor" think "form" because that is what they are
in essence. Tensors are multi-compartmented distinctions that have
their own rules that are an addition to the Calculus of Indications
developed by GSB in Laws of Form.
Best regards,
Lyle
_______________________________________________
CG mailing list -- cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org [1]
To unsubscribe send an email to cg-leave(a)lists.iccs-conference.org
[2]
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'cg-leave(a)lists.iccs-conference.org\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Lyle
Thanks for your reply. My interest in Peirce is not with regard to
terms [I am uninterested in terminology] but in his infrastructure of
existential reality; namely, the triad as a networked 'well-formed
formula' along with the three modal categories - that enables matter
to transform from form-to-form within self-organized complex systems.
Edwina
On Sun 16/01/22 4:15 PM , lylephone(a)cox.net sent:
Edwina,
The work of Charles Sanders Pierce is very interesting, but he never
discovered the "imaginary" values of a complete logical system. I am
sure that had he been given a copy of Laws of Form, his reaction
would have been the same as Bertrand Russell's, "This is the book I
wish I had written."
If your focus on Pierce is based on his introduction of new
terminology to describe things, semiotics, and such, then I sincerely
invite you to read Illobrand von Ludwiger's monogram on "The New
Worldview of the Physicist Burkhard Heim." Heim introduced a lot of
new terms because he was describing things no one had thought of
before.
If you want to skip the physics and go to the heart of the matter,
then start with page 81, "The aspect-related Logic for the unified
Description of Body and Soul."
http://heim-theory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/I-v-Ludwiger-The-New-Worl…
[1]
Here is a sample of what you will find there: "The interpretation of
the two additional dimensions in Heim’s theory as coordinates with
qualitative character demanded the alternative logic being expanded
to an aspect-related logic. With his logical method independent of a
specific statement system Heim was then able to make quantitative and
qualitative statements in a unified formal way. This method is called
syntrometry by Heim. It is the combination of different metronic
structures.
"The consequence is, we no longer need to try deriving life
processes or consciousness from physical quantum processes, but you
start from a superior entity that manifests itself in this logic
method, the syntrometry."
What I am working on now is to demonstrate how Heim's "different
metronic structures" are specific Forms that were Indicated by the
Creator for this specific Universe.
Best regards,
Lyle
_______________________________________________
CG mailing list -- cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org [2]
To unsubscribe send an email to cg-leave(a)lists.iccs-conference.org
[3]
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fheim-theory.com%2F…
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'cg-leave(a)lists.iccs-conference.org\',\'\',\'\',\'\')