Issue 98045 | Editor: Erik Sandewall | 12.5.1998 |
Today |
It appears that a number of our readers like to print the Newsletter issues and read them from paper, for example while travelling. Until now, Newsletters have only been produced in plaintext and HTML format. As a result of some additional hacking, we know offer past and forthcoming Newsletters in postscript format (via Latex) as well. At present, most Newsletters issues during 1998 exist in postscript (although still with minor bugs in some places), and the new software makes it possible to produce forthcoming Newsletter issues in postscript at once.
Another result of this software step is that the generation of the monthly News Journal issues in postscript goes more smoothly than before. The News Journal issues for January and February have been posted in the ENRAC web structure (go to the page for back issues!), and the following months are forthcoming. Participating authors, please check that your contributions have been rendered correctly. These News Journal issues will be published officially by the end of the month, allowing some time for corrections.
Since the News Journal in postscript issue is the official appearance of the discussions that evolves in this Newsletter, it is recommended to use it for any citations e.g. from regular articles. The News Journal is formally published, it has a journal "look and feel" with respect to e.g. page layout and page numbering.
The present Newsletter issue contains a contribution by Jixin Ma to the discussion about Ontologies for time.
Debates |
Reply to Sergio Brandano (ENRAC 8.5.1998)
The only one "minor adjustment" I made consists in the first four
lines of my contribution to ENRAC 3.5.1998, where no inequality
appears at all. Concerning the hypothesis, I remind you what I wrote
in ENRAC 24.4.1998:
|
The axiom of completeness imposes
|
...when you construct intervals out of points. In the case where
intervals are taken as primitive, the need of such alternative is
indeed more conceptually necessary). However, your adjustment is not
enough, or you haven't reached the proper form for general treatments.
In fact, you need address the issue regarding different cases. To see
this, you may just consider the difference between the case where at
least one of
|
... at least one is closed. So we have, since
Note I used Pat's example:
|
This is exactly what I wanted to show and have shown to you a few times. That is, in the case there your domain S contains intervals, to fulfill the axiom of completeness, S has to contains singletons (single points) as well, not as you specially claimed that S contains points or (exclusive-or) intervals. My observation that Pat's example would be valid is under your assumption that the domain S refuses to take both intervals and singletons (points). I think when Pat gave the example, he also followed this assumption of yours. (Actually, Pat did specially claim that "unless you allow intervals consisting of a single point" when he gave the example in ENRAC 24.4.1998).
use |
... the latter case. So we have, since
|
The problem about intervals is whether one needs to introduce them
into the temporal domain, and the few argument-examples I encountered
are far from being convincing. Furthermore, in this debate, you and
Hayes proposed the DIP, and I refuted it.
|
Jixin