[Crm-sig] Space time volumes

Franco Niccolucci franco.niccolucci at gmail.com
Thu Mar 21 11:52:38 EET 2019


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 <
francesco.beretta at cnrs.fr> 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 <Dan at cimec.ro> 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 <martin at ics.forth.gr>
>> 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 <martin at ics.forth.gr>
>> 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
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing listCrm-sig at ics.forth.grhttp://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20190321/8ebf6ee7/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list