- From: Emery, Pat <pemery@grci.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 17:38:51 -0400
- To: "'Seth Russell'" <seth@robustai.net>, "Emery, Pat" <pemery@grci.com>, cg@cs.uah.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net] From: "Emery, Pat" <pemery@grci.com> >>A sequence is a >> function. I think all that you need for an intrinsic or non-intrinsic >> definition of order is to be able to define a function. > >I don't know what you mean by "intrinsic definition". To me something that >is intrinsic cannot be defined, or rather does not need to be defined. In >model theoretic semantics they don't define Truth. I suppose Tarski tried, >but I for one was not satisfied that he said anything. You asked, "Is the meaning of order intrinisc?" By "intrinsic definition" I mean the mechanism that you would need to define or have for the "meaning of order to be intrinsic". >I don't see how you can use the mechanism of a function to define sequence >either. If I say f(a, b) =/= f(b, a) then I suppose I have defined that >(a,b) is an ordered pair in relationship to the function f. But if sequence >was not already prior to the mechanism of our system the expression f(a, b) >would not even be distinguishable from the expression f(b,a) .. so such a >definition chases its own tail ... doesn't it? For example take a look at: http://www.shu.edu/html/teaching/math/reals/infinity/defs/ordering.html or http://burks.brighton.ac.uk/burks/foldoc/9/116.htm But as I previously stated, "I think there may be an intrinsic order and a non-intrinsic order." ... "The system needs to preserve the positional order( if the system has a concpet of an ordered list )." Beyond this explicitly the user should be able to define what it means to them for a list to be in a paticular order. For this the language will need a way for the user to define a function. >Seth Russell Pat Emery
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 17:42:10 UTC