Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 08:13:08 -0400

> 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

I fail to see that the technical use of "unitary" in representation theory
(as applied to groups) has any bearing here, as there is no overlap with
knowledge representation.

peter

Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 13:42:57 UTC