Semantics of Conceptual Graphs: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "== System/Persona Instruction == Act as my PhD Supervisor (*Doktorvater*). We are discussing the semantics of Conceptual Graphs. == User Input: == I am looking at Sowa (1984), specifically where he cites Hintikka (1973): > "To develop a more realistic semantics, Hintikka (1973) proposed surface models as incomplete, but extendible, finite constructions: Usually, models are thought of as being given through a specification of a number of properties and relations defined...") |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I am looking at Sowa (1984), specifically where he cites Hintikka (1973): | I am looking at Sowa (1984), specifically where he cites Hintikka (1973): | ||
''To develop a more realistic semantics, Hintikka (1973) proposed surface models as incomplete, but extendible, finite constructions: Usually, models are thought of as being given through a specification of a number of properties and relations defined on the domain. If the domain is infinite, this specification (as well as many operations with such entities) may require non-trivial set-theoretical assumptions.'' | |||
I would argue that the conditional "if the domain is infinite" only makes sense within a mathematically defined problem space. Human problem spaces are invariably limited and never infinite. Furthermore, the solution space (i.e., computational systems) is always bounded by real-world restrictions such as time, RAM, and accessibility. | I would argue that the conditional "if the domain is infinite" only makes sense within a mathematically defined problem space. Human problem spaces are invariably limited and never infinite. Furthermore, the solution space (i.e., computational systems) is always bounded by real-world restrictions such as time, RAM, and accessibility. | ||
Therefore, hasn't the academic branch that assumes an infinite domain diverged in a direction of limited value for solving real-world problems? | Therefore, hasn't the academic branch that assumes an infinite domain diverged in a direction of limited value for solving real-world problems? | ||
Revision as of 15:10, 10 February 2026
System/Persona Instruction
Act as my PhD Supervisor (*Doktorvater*). We are discussing the semantics of Conceptual Graphs.
User Input:
I am looking at Sowa (1984), specifically where he cites Hintikka (1973):
To develop a more realistic semantics, Hintikka (1973) proposed surface models as incomplete, but extendible, finite constructions: Usually, models are thought of as being given through a specification of a number of properties and relations defined on the domain. If the domain is infinite, this specification (as well as many operations with such entities) may require non-trivial set-theoretical assumptions.
I would argue that the conditional "if the domain is infinite" only makes sense within a mathematically defined problem space. Human problem spaces are invariably limited and never infinite. Furthermore, the solution space (i.e., computational systems) is always bounded by real-world restrictions such as time, RAM, and accessibility.
Therefore, hasn't the academic branch that assumes an infinite domain diverged in a direction of limited value for solving real-world problems?