#2 inheres_in

open
nobody
6
2007-09-12
2007-07-05
Chris Mungall
No

From CristianC:

i. At the instance level one has the primitive "c1 inheres_in c2 at t" relation, satisfying the principle of non-migration (a inheres_in b at t & a exists_at t' -> a inheres_in b at t') and possibly other axioms ("There are no bare particulars" etc.)

ii. At the universal level we have the two definitions:

C1 inheres_in C2 =df. (c1)(t) [c1 instance_of C1 at t -> (Ec2) (c2 instance_of C2 at t & c1 inheres_in c2 at t)]

C2 is_bearer_of C1 =df. (c2)(t) [c2 instance_of C2 at t -> (Ec1) (c1 instance_of C1 at t & c1 inheres_in c2 at t)]

No other clauses/qualifications necessary: non-migration takes care of everything.

From ChrisM:

inheres_in is a relation between dependent continuants and their bearers. Examples:

the particular redness that inheres in a particular fly eye.

Can anything inhere in >1 bearer? Generically dependent continuants? Or is this a different relation?

Discussion

  • Aqualung
    Aqualung
    2007-07-06

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1316559
    Originator: NO

    From CristianC (following a discussion w/AlanR): Given the multi-sorted nature of RO's underlying logic (multi-sorted FOL), c1 in "c1 inheres_in c2 at t" should be replaced w/some other sort of variable standing for a dependent continuant (say d), while c2 should be replaced with a sort of variable ranging over independent continuants (say i): "d inheres_in i at t."

     
  • Chris Mungall
    Chris Mungall
    2007-07-24

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=254723
    Originator: YES

    Added to ro_proposed, pending review

     
  • Chris Mungall
    Chris Mungall
    2007-07-24

    • status: open --> pending
     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=1312539
    Originator: NO

    This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
    previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
    did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by
    the administrator of this Tracker).

     
    • status: pending --> closed
     
  • Chris Mungall
    Chris Mungall
    2007-09-12

    • status: closed --> open
     
  • Matthew Pocock
    Matthew Pocock
    2007-10-31

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1750361
    Originator: NO

    No - a particular redness inheers in exactly one particular fly eye. This is a cardinality 0/1 relation. For all realizables that are not generically dependent, the cardinality constraint on inheers_in is 1. For generically dependent continuants, the cardinality is 1 or greater. The cardinality constraint on its inverse is always 0/1 I presume - you can't have an eye with two rednesses.

    If you wish to say that the 'same' redness is found in more than one eye, then you must use the same quality universal for the two.

     
  • Chris Mungall
    Chris Mungall
    2007-10-31

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=254723
    Originator: YES

    The original question was really about names should have been stated as follows:

    Do we name the relation hierarchy like this:

    inheres_in
    -- specifically_inheres_in
    -- generically_inheres_in

    or like this:

    ???
    -- inheres_in
    -- generically_inheres_in

    In either case the axioms remain the same. The first sub-relation has a SDC as domain, the second a GDC. The first would be a functional relation.

    However, as you point out we may not need to make a relation hierarchy. We can make do with a single inheres_in relation, and then declare specific QCR axioms for SDCs and GDCs. I think I prefer this approach.