An even easier example to see that the FOL formalisation is wrong is a stolen painting with unknown whereabouts. In this case there is a place attestation of the origin but no (publicly available) place attestation of the move at all, unless we argue with an implicit "move took place at Planet Earth".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stolen_paintings#Unrecovered > Am 26.10.2022 um 13:00 schrieb Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig > <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>: > > Dear All, > > The scope note of P26 "moved to" says: > >> The area of the move includes the origin(s), route and destination(s). > > I have no issue with that. However, I think the formalisation is not correct: > >> Therefore, the described destination is an instance of E53 Place which P89 >> falls within (contains) the instance of E53 Place the move P7 took place at. > > P26(x,y) ⇒ (∃z) [E53(z) ∧ P7(x,z) ∧ P89(y,z)] > > I assume that P26 behaves in the same way as P7, ie. there are some > attestations and one can infer the best approximation. Now take this scenario: > * a single, very precise attestation of the whole move > * one additional larger attestation of the destination > > In this scenario there is no attested place of the move that contains the > attested place of the destination. Note that I don't claim this scenario to > be particularly plausible or realistic, but it doesn't have to be. It is just > a counterexample to show that the formalisation cannot be correct. > > Instead we need to compare either the phenomenal places, in which case it is > no longer a statement about P26, or our current best knowledge about move and > destination. We could say that an attestation of the move is also an > attestation of the destination: > > P26(x,y) ⇐ E9(x) ∧ P7(x,y) > > In the scenario above we can now infer that the intersection of the two > attestations is a new approximation of the destination. > > And of course the same for P27 "moved from". > > > Side note: This would make P7 a "quasi subproperty" of P26/P27, i.e. a > subproperty on a subclass of its domain, although the direction from P7 to > P26/P27 is perhaps less intuitive than the direction in e.g. P161 "has > spatial projection" being a "quasi subproperty" of P7. > > Side side note: However, if the S2 and S2a in the other thread are supposed > to be different, one consequence would be that P161(x,y) ∧ E4(x) ⇒ P7(x,y) > can no longer be true. Another way to come to the same conclusion: it would > imply that the phenomenal place is automatically the best known P7 > approximation of itself. Perhaps one could call P161 a "phenomenal property" > and P7, P26 and P27 "declarative properties". > > Best, > Wolfgang > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
