Hi Dan,
On 3/20/2019 3:59 PM, Dan Matei wrote:
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
Well, it is not really about rules, but what you talk about. You need
: Can we identify at least some instances of
E92 that are not an instance of E4?
See above, the declarative ones.
best,
Martin
From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios
Sent: 21 March 2019 17:12
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] S
). The question
is analogues to the question above : Can we identify at least some instances of
E92 that are not an instance of E4?
From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios
Sent: 21 March 2019 17:12
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Space
A couple of comments from me:
>> 1) which E2 is not an E4, even in a broad sense?
I think the question here are whether "E3 Condition State" is the same
as "E4 Period" and if "P5 and P9 consists of" are similar transitive
properties. From a conservation point of view I was never comfortable
with
Dear Franco,
you find me in full agreement with your vision of things.
All the best
Francesco
Le 21.03.19 à 10:52, Franco Niccolucci a écrit :
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
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
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
(‘r
(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 supersc
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,
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Martin Doerr
List-Post: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2
Dear Dan,
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?
Hi fiends,
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 19:20, Martin Doerr 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 :-) :
<#Byzant
Dear Robert,
Yes, this is up to the point. An example for E93 would be nice:
typically, some reported situations, such as a museum object having been
in display case xxx at least for this time-span, etc.
Another important case are the declarative STVs (CRMgeo) we need in
great number for app
Thank you Martin!
If I can try to summarize my understanding, …
A physical object isA space time volume that has a temporal projection that is
equal to the time span between its beginning of existence and its end of
existence.
A period isA space time volume that has a temporal projection that i
13 matches
Mail list logo
