'MCRT: An Upper Ontology for General Purpose Reality Modeling'
By Marc Geddes
Sydney, Australia
22th March, 2008
Abstract
In this paper I explore the consequence of two assumptions:
(1) A model of reality can be entirely captured by an Upper Ontology
and Data Models are Logical
I have uploaded the paper as a formatted Word Doc, which is easier on
the eye:
http://everything-list.googlegroups.com/web/MCRTOntology.doc?gda=3dFfBEE6sAh9xrcEfYjLcJeK--tyllM2puGzdo9sGlIZYEi4rGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDRrROYvly_CiqS44qlTBAu-5KylSQ9gG5gUBwiOovY3VA
There is also a preliminary UML
Hi again...
In +this+ post, I am attempting to encapsulate all previous posts on
sci.logic and here.
In a nutshell, my work in FL is going to hopefully provide the
beginnings of an answer to what is the universe by at least making a
plausibility case for some universal fuzzy set, in conjunction
My main
goal is that I seem to need to show that such a fuzzy set theory, one
with a universal set, is ++consistent relative to ZFC++ or at
least
prove that that's not possible (ie, prove a generalization of
Russell's paradox).
It is proved in Paraconsistent Logic:
From your link.
Does 'any theory' in the following quote include theories that involve
logics with every MV-algebra as their truth set and every set of
syntactical axioms or is this just any theory using binary logic?
Could Russell have proved anything in the context of even
paraconsistent
Does 'any theory' in the following quote include theories that
involve
logics with every MV-algebra as their truth set and every set of
syntactical axioms or is this just any theory using binary logic?
my guess is: just any theory using binary logic.
I would tend to think that most mathematicians and even more
physicists and even more engineers and even more laymen would say that
'just' is a huge, huge understatement.
However, from the perspective of Non-Classical logic (be it
paraconsistent or fuzzy), that sentence was perfectly formulated,
7 matches
Mail list logo
