Saturday, January 07, 2006
New
discussion about signal pathways
and complex ontology
This is part of a discussion that will be moved to a Wiki page soon.
Communication to Dr
Richard Ballard, founder Knowledge Foundations Inc.
In my work, the a, r, and b are structural in
nature; all the result of a measurement of structure. There is no inference and no implied meaning. There is also no logical apparatus defined
at this point. A logical apparatus
can be developed later. Meaning can be
assigned later on.
We agree here completely. The n-ary representation of information, and the associated constraints imposed by your theory creates a new “mathematics”. The nature of this new mathematics is not yet understood. I feel that stratification is also necessary so that nested contextualization finds a home.
You have always, up to now, misunderstood my intended use here. The triple for me is a result of measurement, a measurement that places “a” and “b” in the same frame. This measurement does not fix the “r” as having a meaning. “r’ is “non-specific”. If bags of < a, r, b > s, called syntagmatic units by Pospelov, are aggregated together, then we have n-aries. This aggregation needs something more that computation, if the information is to have the properties of validated scientific knowledge representation.
Do these n-aries meet the constraints that the Mark 3 will place on knowledge representation, well that depends on if you and I can figure out how to do this.
Paul Prueitt