Peihong karl proj 3#14
Conversation
…-696 into Peihong_Karl_proj_3
Add picture in Q6
|
|
||
| **Answer:** | ||
|
|
||
| (a) Object properties **"simultaneous with", "has part", "part of", "overlaps" and so on** should be reflexive, though it is not listed as so. For example, an event can be simultaneous with itself; also, an entity has_part, part_of, or overlaps itself because it is equivalent to itself. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should pick only one of these and give a more detailed explanation. It would also be a good idea to have a concrete example if possible to make your argument and intention clearer.
|
|
||
| (c) The object property **"biotically interacts with"** should be symmetric, though it is not listed as so. If an organism A biotically interacts with another organism B, then it is clear that B is also biotically interacts with A. | ||
|
|
||
| Similarly, **"participates in a biotic-biotic interaction with", "ecologically co-occurs with", "partially overlap" and so on** should also be symmetric. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The additional ones are not necessary here. Also, it seems like hitting on larger numbers like this runs a greater risk of you getting one wrong. Better to pick one you are most confident in and save the others for another day.
|
|
||
| Similarly, **"participates in a biotic-biotic interaction with", "ecologically co-occurs with", "partially overlap" and so on** should also be symmetric. | ||
|
|
||
| (d) The object property **"has skeleton"** should be functional, though it is not listed as so. According to its definition, "has skeleton" is a relation between a segment or subdivision of an organism and the maximal subdivision of material entities that provides structural support for that segment or subdivision. Given that the maximal subdivision of material entities for any organism has only one, this object property is thereby functional. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should give a clear explanation of what is meant by functional here to set up your argument. Functional is probably the hardest to understand as well, so it will be good to show that you have a clear understanding of its meaning before going into your example.
|
|
||
| (e) The object property **"overlaps"** should be both symmetric and reflexive, though it is not listed as so. First, if A overlaps B, then A and B has some common part. So B and A has also some common part, and thus B overlaps A. That is, overlapping is symmetric. Second, an entity can overlap itself because it clearly has the same parts with itself. Therefore, overlapping is also reflexive. | ||
|
|
||
| Similarly, **"spatially coextensive with" and "simultaneous with"** is also symmetric and reflexive. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same with my previous comments on the extra examples. More likely to get one wrong and doesn't really add anything to your answer.
|
|
||
| **Answer:** | ||
|
|
||
| (a) Although **"has substance added"** is listed as irreflexive, but it should not be so. That is, in some cases, a physical entity can have itself as substance added to it. For example, a portion of water can be added to itself at some time. Similarly, **"has substance removed"** should not be irreflexive, either because we can always remove the same amount of water from itself. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as last comment, and the first sentence could be improved by just ending with "should not be listed as irreflexive."
|
|
||
| Another funny example: Although **"end after"** is listed as transitive, but it should not be so. A possible counterexample can be found in a spacetime circle: The event of Jack's killing his grandfather ends after the event of his shooting, and the latter ends after the event of his returning to the past. However, the event of Jack's killing his grandfather does not end after the event of his returning to the past. Similarly, **"before"** should not be transitive, either. *(paradox of time travel)* | ||
|
|
||
| (c) Although **"has role in modeling" (or "is used to study")** is listed as asymmetric, but it should not be so. Suppose we wanna study the relation between a biological organism, say, a dog, and its biological niche. Given the mutual dependence between them in some plausible sense, it seems that the dog has role in modeling its niche, but its niche has also role in modeling it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good to mention the parts about "biological, experimental, or computational artifact" for your explanation here. It's useful terminology, and you may have an issue with your current example as the dog and their niche are both not artifacts (at least under traditional understandings) since they were not intentionally created by anyone. You could keep it but using the different types of artifacts in any case would make the explanation stronger.
|
|
||
| **s** : Sally | ||
|
|
||
| So the sentence (a) is symbolized as: **∃t∃x(Has(s,x,t) ∧ Arm(x) ∧ T(t)) ∧ ∃t∀x(W(t) ∧ (Arm (x) → ~Has(s,x,t)))** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is fine as it is, but I will mention that the sentence could be simpler if you didn't try to represent the specific status of Tuesdays and Wednesdays as units of time.
|
|
||
| (a) True. Boundary or sites are in some cases **continuant parts** of their material hosts (Arp, Smith & Spear 2015: 108). For example, a digestive tube can have its *bona fide* boundary (biological membrane) as part. | ||
|
|
||
| (b) False. According to its definition in BFO, any immaterial entity contains no material entities as parts (Arp, Smith & Spear 2015: 107). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is fine as it is. It might be a good idea to use a concrete example and explain why it wouldn't work.
|
|
||
| (e) False. A site, according to its definition in BFO, may be a three-dimensional immaterial part of an immaterial entity (partially or wholly) bounded by a material entity. In this case, the site in question may be itself not partially bounded by a material entity. | ||
|
|
||
| (f) False. A function is a disposition that exists in virtue of the bearer’s physical make-up and this physical make-up is something the bearer possesses **because it came into being**. So nothing can acquire a new function after its becoming. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The explanation seems incorrect to me. The answer will be the same in either case, but being the cause of something coming into being does not define the created thing. Having a physical make-up of such-and-such as a result of being intentionally created does nothing to change the physical make-up; it only explains how that physical make-up came to occur. The physical make-up is what is relevant to the function, not what made the physical make-up come about.
To make this more concrete, it seems absurd to claim that because a book was made to contain the story of Anna Karenina that that is the only function it could ever have. As a book, it takes up physical space and has a specific weight which would be parts of it's physical make-up by necessity of it fulfilling the intended function. These parts of its physical make-up then would allow us to use it to weigh down papers, stack things on top of it, and otherwise do things with it as a physical object with these characteristics. These functions may or may not be intended, but it seems to me that they would be functions just as well as containing the story of Anna Karenina.
|
That should be all of my review here. The main takeaways should be some changes to make explanations more effective or focused, some other recommendations here or there, and a disagreement about what is involved in function compared to the mechanism which creates the basis of that function. |
3 participants
@ahasanzadeh13 @Jvonderhbuff Would you all like to review my project 3? Have fun!