Dear Francesco
I agree with your analysis. My comment last night aimed at showing in
Dan’s case the inconsistencies you explain in your message by a
reductio ad absurdum.
My questions are:
1) which E2 is not an E4, even in a broad sense?
2) which E94 (relevant, and not just purely abstract) is not also an E4?
3) Does the scope note of E94 allow the existence of some instances
that are also E4, as implied by the subclass condition and described
in Dan’s examples?
4) What is the difference between P4/P7 and P160/P162?
My answers are in the negative for all of the above, but I may be wrong.
I am not sure that E94 should end in the waste basket; perhaps it
should go in the recycle bin and be repurposed as an abstract concept
like Time-span, Place and Dimension, at the same time freeing E4 from
dependence from it: E4 would occupy some E94, not be it.
Best,
Franco
Il giorno gio 21 mar 2019 alle 08:30 Francesco Beretta
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> ha scritto:
Dear Dan, Franco, all,
in a nutshell:
Period – E4
P4 has time-span E52 Time-Span
P7 took place at E53 Place
Spacetime Volume – E92
P160 has temporal projection E52 Time-Span
P161 has spatial projection E53 Place
Period – E4 (phenomenal) Pxx has projection in Spacetime Volume –
E92 (‘region’)
If we keep Spacetime Volume – E92 in the model we should get rid
of /P4 has time-span/ and /P7 took place/ at because they are
redundant with /P160 has temporal projection/and /P161 has spatial
projection/, or apply the logical mechanism proposed by Martin
which is under discussion.
If we get rid of E92 (and properties) and clearly explain E4 is a
spacetime volume /by definition/, with temporal and spatial
projection (P4/P7), then the issue seems to be solved.
E4 being a subclass of E92 is in my opinion (and other’s also as
we know) inconsistent with the traditional modelling method, and
also misleading.
If E4 can be merged with E2 (E2 would always have a projection in
space, at least virtually, be this my brain the ‘place’ for my
belief), then E2 is a STV with projection in time and space.
This synthesis may be too simple not to be simplistic and I miss
some crucial point ?
All the best
Francesco
Le 21.03.19 à 00:05, Franco Niccolucci a écrit :
(Dan, resist, the cavalry is arriving, do you hear the trumpets? )
Sorry, that’s not convincing.
E4 Period is a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume, so every E4 is
also an E92. There may theoretically be some E92 that are not E4,
i.e. abstract subsets of R4 (sorry my email app does not allow
superscrpits, R4 means the 4-dimensional space of real numbers x,
y, z, t)
So Dan’s “Byzantine period” is rightfully also a Spacetime
Volume, besides obviously being an E4 Period; same as it is an
E1, the mother of all concepts. If it does not fit with the E92
scope note, it is the latter that is misspelled and wrong, not
Dan. Scope notes cannot override isA.
Also, since the domain of P160 & 161 is E92, they can be applied
also to E4. Perhaps this makes P7 superfluous, but that’s another
story.
In sum there is nothing “wrong” in Dan’s usage of E92 and the
related properties.
I would also add that I find difficult to describe an E92 that is
not an E4, besides artificial examples.
(Dan, nasty Indians are running away in debacle, you are safe...)
Finally, let me express some nightly gut feeling.
I am not comfortable with the scope note of E2: “This class
comprises all phenomena, such as the instances of E4 Periods, E5
Events and states, which happen over a limited extent in time”.
If these phenomena are happening, they happen somewhere, do you
know anything happening nowhere? so I would feel better by adding
at the end of this sentence “in time AND SPACE”. Actually, all
the examples of E2 mentioned in its scope note happen somewhere:
the Bronze Age happened in a region (Europe, the Levant, etc. not
in America); the Lisbon earthquake happend in Lisbon; the
Peterhof Palace in ruins happened in Northern Russia. My gut
feeling is that the scope notes of E2 and perhaps E4 were written
before achieving the concept of E92, so they might be
inconsistent or superfluous nowadays. My moonlight feeeling is
that all temporal things are subclasses of E92; but this could be
the effect of sad Brussels loneliness, where I am now, so don’t
take it too seriously.
Best
Franco
Il giorno mer 20 mar 2019 alle 15:04 Dan Matei <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> ha scritto:
Thanks Christian-Emil and Martin.
I will use then E4 and P7 (regretfully :-)
My impression is that the combination E92, P160 & P161 is a
more elegant solution. But, rules are
rules...
Best,
EDan
E2 and -----Original Message-----
From: Martin Doerr <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:13:52 +0200
> As Christian-Emil also pointed out, this is a wrong use of E92.
>
> The scope note says: "This class comprises 4 dimensional
point sets
> (volumes) in physical spacetime....".
>
> Do you regard that what makes up the identity and substance
of the
> Byzantine Period is to be a set of points?
>
> best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 3/19/2019 10:27 AM, Dan Matei wrote:
> > Hi fiends,
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 19:20, Martin Doerr
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >> Nevertheless, we used the term informally in the CRM. We
could name E92 as "abstract".
> > For me, some E92 are not abstract. E.g. I instantiate
"Byzantine
> > Period" (it is somwhat difficult to place it in South
America :-) :
> >
> > <#ByzantinePeriod> <isA> <crm:E92_Spacetime_Volume>
> > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P160_has_temporal_projection>
<330-1700>
> > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P161_has_spatial_projection>
<#EsternEurope>
> > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P161_has_spatial_projection>
<#Levant>
> > <#ByzantinePeriod> <crm:P161_has_spatial_projection>
<#NorthAfrica>
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > <#BronzeAge1> <isA> <crm:E92_Spacetime_Volume>
> > <#BronzeAge1> <crm:P2 has_type> <#BronzeAge-Concept>
> > <#BronzeAge1> <crm:P160_has_temporal_projection> <p?1>
> > <#BronzeAge1><crm:P161_has_spatial_projection>
<#JapaneseIslands>
> >
> > <#BronzeAge2> <isA> <crm:E92_Spacetime_Volume>
> > <#BronzeAge2> <crm:P2 has_type> <#BronzeAge-Concept>
> > <#BronzeAge2> <crm:P160_has_temporal_projection> <p?2>
> > <#BronzeAge2><crm:P161_has_spatial_projection> <#Scandinavia>
> >
> > Should I worry ?
> >
> > Dan
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
