- CG - lists.cs.uni-kassel.de

by Jon Awbrey

Cf: Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Preliminaries https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/27/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-p… All, I need to return to my study of Peirce’s 1870 Logic of Relatives, and I thought it might be more pleasant to do that on my blog than to hermit away on the wiki where I last left off. Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Part 1 =========================================== https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Part_1 Peirce’s text employs lower case letters for logical terms of general reference and upper case letters for logical terms of individual reference. General terms fall into types, namely, absolute terms, dyadic relative terms, and higher adic relative terms, and Peirce employs different typefaces to distinguish these. The following Tables indicate the typefaces used in the text below for Peirce’s examples of general terms. Table 1. Absolute Terms (Monadic Relatives) https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/peirces-1870-lor-e28… Table 2. Simple Relative Terms (Dyadic Relatives) https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/peirces-1870-lor-e28… Table 3. Conjugative Terms (Higher Adic Relatives) https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/peirces-1870-lor-e28… Individual terms are taken to denote individual entities falling under a general term. Peirce uses upper case Roman letters for individual terms, for example, the individual horses H, H′, H″ falling under the general term h for horse. The path to understanding Peirce’s system and its wider implications for logic can be smoothed by paraphrasing his notations in a variety of contemporary mathematical formalisms, while preserving the semantics as much as possible. Remaining faithful to Peirce’s orthography while adding parallel sets of stylistic conventions will, however, demand close attention to typography-in-context. Current style sheets for mathematical texts specify italics for mathematical variables, with upper case letters for sets and lower case letters for individuals. So we need to keep an eye out for the difference between the individual X of the genus x and the element x of the set X as we pass between the two styles of text. References ========== • Peirce, C.S. (1870), “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole’s Calculus of Logic”, Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 9, 317–378, 26 January 1870. Reprinted, Collected Papers (CP 3.45–149), Chronological Edition (CE 2, 359–429). Online: • https://www.jstor.org/stable/25058006 • https://archive.org/details/jstor-25058006 • https://books.google.com/books?id=fFnWmf5oLaoC • Peirce, C.S., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1–6, Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds.), vols. 7–8, Arthur W. Burks (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1931–1935, 1958. Cited as (CP volume.paragraph). • Peirce, C.S., Writings of Charles S. Peirce : A Chronological Edition, Peirce Edition Project (eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN, 1981–. Cited as (CE volume, page). Resources ========= • Peirce’s 1870 Logic of Relatives https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Overview Regards, Jon

3 years, 2 months

1
85
0 0

Re: n-dimensional vector datatype?

by John F Sowa

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

3 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

ACM Opens First 50 Years Backfile

by John F Sowa

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.

3 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

n-dimensional vector datatype?

by John F Sowa

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

3 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

CfP (extended deadline): 27th International Conference on Conceptual Structures

by Tom Hanika

*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)

3 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Some beginner questions about Prolog+CG

by Damien Guichard

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

3 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

What does Charles Sanders Peirce semiotic has to do with algebraic topology?

by garyzhubc＠gmail.com

What does Charles Sanders Peirce semiotic has to do with algebraic topology?

3 years, 4 months

1
0
1 0

Re: Differential Logic and Dynamic Systems

by Jon Awbrey

Cf: Differential Logic and Dynamic Systems • Discussion 7 http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/02/09/differential-logic-and-dynamic-sys… Re: Differential Logic and Dynamic Systems https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part… ::: Intentional Propositions https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part… Re: FB | Differential Logic https://www.facebook.com/DifferentialLogic/posts/2868375713219794 ::: Marius V. Constantin https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache/posts/10225410016490896?comment_id=1022… All, Marius Constantin asks about the logical value of intentions which are not carried out. <QUOTE MVC:> I have in my intention to give like, but I didn't. What is the value (logic) of this proposition? </QUOTE> Dear Marius, A difference between an expected state and an observed state is called a Surprise. A surprise calls for an explanation. A difference between an intended state and an observed state is called a Problem. A problem calls for a plan of action. There's more discussion in the following essay and section. Prospects for Inquiry Driven Systems https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Prospects_for_Inquiry_Driven_Systems Topos : Rudiments and Immediate Resources https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Prospects_for_Inquiry_Driven_Systems#… Resources ========= Survey of Differential Logic https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2021/05/15/survey-of-differential-logic-3/ Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/12/27/survey-of-inquiry-driven-systems-… Regards, Jon

3 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [ontolog-forum] Is AI Metaphysics/Real Ontology?

by John F Sowa

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#

3 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: Laws of form

by Edwina Taborsky

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\',\'\',\'\',\'\')

3 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

CG