Re: Ontolog Forum • Roberto Rovetto (1) (2)

RR:

What’s your view on:

When to create a greater-than-binary relation rather than a binary relation?

Consider:  You want to represent some information, statement, or knowledge, without necessarily being forced to limit to binary relations.  A common example is when wanting to reference time.  And “between” is greater than binary.  What are other pieces of knowledge that you’d want assert a ternary, or greater than binary relation to capture it accurately?

Do you have any rules of thumb for knowing when to assert n-ary relations greater than binary?

Dear Roberto,

Let me return to your original question and give it better attention.

You have probably noticed you got a wide variety of answers coming from a diversity of conceptual frameworks and philosophical paradigms.  It gradually dawned on me some years ago these differences are most likely matters of taste about which all dispute is futile, however much we go ahead and do it anyway.  So I’ll just say what I’ve found works best in my particular applications of interest, namely, applying relational logic to mathematics and research sciences.

To avoid the kinds of culture clashes I remember from the Standard Upper Ontology Lists and other ancestors of this Forum at the turn of the millennium, I’ll develop the rest of this line of inquiry on the thread for Relations and Their Relatives.

Regards,

Jon

cc: Category Theory • Cybernetics • Ontolog • Structural Modeling • Systems Science
cc: FB | Relation Theory • Laws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3)