Changes

segment text
Line 1: Line 1: −
<pre>
+
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Factorization Issues}}
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
     −
Factorization Issues
+
==Note 1==
 
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
  −
 
  −
Note 1
  −
 
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
      +
<pre>
 
| Things are equivocally named, when they have the name only in common,
 
| Things are equivocally named, when they have the name only in common,
 
| the definition (or statement of essence) corresponding with the name
 
| the definition (or statement of essence) corresponding with the name
Line 23: Line 17:  
| Translated by H.P. Cooke & H. Tredennick, Loeb Classics,
 
| Translated by H.P. Cooke & H. Tredennick, Loeb Classics,
 
| William Heinemann Ltd, London, UK, 1938.
 
| William Heinemann Ltd, London, UK, 1938.
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
      
I would like to introduce a concept that I find to be of
 
I would like to introduce a concept that I find to be of
Line 307: Line 299:  
and this is the topic that
 
and this is the topic that
 
I will take up next.
 
I will take up next.
 +
</pre>
   −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
+
==Note 2==
 
  −
Note 2
  −
 
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
      +
<pre>
 
Let me illustrate what I think that a lot of our controversies
 
Let me illustrate what I think that a lot of our controversies
 
about nominalism versus realism actually boil down to in practice.
 
about nominalism versus realism actually boil down to in practice.
Line 496: Line 486:  
Okay, there are a few pieces of this that I
 
Okay, there are a few pieces of this that I
 
will need to think over once or thrice more.
 
will need to think over once or thrice more.
 +
</pre>
   −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
+
==Note 3==
 
  −
Note 3
  −
 
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
      +
<pre>
 
JA = Jon Awbrey
 
JA = Jon Awbrey
 
SR = Seth Russell
 
SR = Seth Russell
Line 559: Line 547:  
I forget now, but I don't remember saying anything yet
 
I forget now, but I don't remember saying anything yet
 
about interpretants in this example.  I will go check.
 
about interpretants in this example.  I will go check.
 +
</pre>
   −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
+
==Note 4==
 
  −
Note 4
  −
 
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
      +
<pre>
 
JA = Jon Awbrey
 
JA = Jon Awbrey
 
SR = Seth Russell
 
SR = Seth Russell
Line 902: Line 888:     
SR: ... thanks for the dialogue.
 
SR: ... thanks for the dialogue.
 +
</pre>
   −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
+
==Note 5==
 
  −
Note 5
  −
 
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
      +
<pre>
 
JA = Jon Awbrey
 
JA = Jon Awbrey
 
SR = Seth Russell
 
SR = Seth Russell
Line 1,012: Line 996:  
So, in general, it can happen that a use of the string of char "Cat"
 
So, in general, it can happen that a use of the string of char "Cat"
 
may denote a particular cat, a category of cats, or a catitudiosity.
 
may denote a particular cat, a category of cats, or a catitudiosity.
 +
</pre>
   −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
+
==Work Area==
 
  −
Note ???
  −
 
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
  −
 
  −
 
  −
 
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
  −
 
  −
Note ???
  −
 
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
      +
<pre>
 
The word "intension" has recently come to be stressed in our discussions.
 
The word "intension" has recently come to be stressed in our discussions.
 
As I first learned this word from my reading of Leibniz, I shall take it
 
As I first learned this word from my reading of Leibniz, I shall take it
Line 1,058: Line 1,032:  
analogous to the issue of where to place those other i-words, namely, "idea",
 
analogous to the issue of where to place those other i-words, namely, "idea",
 
capitalized or not, "impresssion", "intelligible concept", and "interpretant".
 
capitalized or not, "impresssion", "intelligible concept", and "interpretant".
 +
</pre>
   −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
+
==Document History==
 
  −
Factorization Issues
     −
Standard Upper Ontology (Nov 2000)
+
===Standard Upper Ontology (Nov 2000)===
    
* http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd224.html#02332
 
* http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd224.html#02332
Line 1,075: Line 1,048:  
# http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg02448.html
 
# http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg02448.html
   −
Standard Upper Ontology (Nov 2001)
+
===Standard Upper Ontology (Nov 2001)===
    
* http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd128.html#07143
 
* http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd128.html#07143
Line 1,083: Line 1,056:  
# http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg07185.html
 
# http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg07185.html
 
# http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg07186.html
 
# http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg07186.html
  −
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
  −
</pre>
 
12,080

edits