Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Chris Welty <cawelty@frontiernet.net>
> Subject: Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:06:49 -0400
>
>   
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>     
>>>     A Proposal for a Unitary Language for RIF Phase 1
>>>       
>> There are many communities in the RIF WG, I'm not sure everyone knows, 
>> or has the same definition for, what unitary means.  Do you intend here 
>> anything more than RIF I will not admit infinite sentences?
>>     
>
> >From http://www.wordreference.com/definition/unitary:
>
> unitary
> A	adjective
>   1	unitary
> 		characterized by or constituting a form of government in
> 		which power is held by one central authority; "a unitary as
> 		opposed to a federal form of government"
> 			
>   2	one(a), unitary
> 		having the indivisible character of a unit;
> 		"a unitary action"; "spoke with one voice"
> 				   
>   3	unitary
> 		of or pertaining to or involving the use of units; "a
> 		unitary method was applied"; "established a unitary
> 		distance on which to base subsequent calculations"
> 						   
>   4	unitary
> 		relating to or characterized by or aiming toward unity;
> 		"the unitary principles of nationalism"; "a unitary
> 		movement in politics"
>
> Recent comments in the working group notwithstanding, I'm not referring to
> anything political here.  I'm also not referring to anything related to
> units, so that leaves definition 2.
>
> The proposal is "unitary" because it speaks (technically) with one voice.
>   
> I don't see the connection between "unitary" and "no infinite sentences".
>   

Unitary is a mathematical property of representations (see e.g. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_representation) which typically 
holds of first-order systems that have compactness.  I thought you were 
making a point against "infinitary" systems (see e.g. 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-infinitary/), some of which are 
still first order by some definitions.  But I see that the proper 
opposite to "infinitary" is "finitary" not unitary, so I was just 
confusing my "tary"s.

However, given that "unitary" is a property of representations (I was 
not confused about that part) I suggest for the long run (in the event 
there is a long run here) to change the name.  Maybe "unified"?  "Grand 
unified"... ;-)  Maybe there isn't a better choice.

-Chris

>
> [... Other responses coming later ...]
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>
>
>
>   


-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@frontiernet.net                     Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 12:13:24 UTC