[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Theories, Models, Reasoning, Language, and Truth

To: "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>, "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Lichtblau, Dale" <Del@xxxxxxx>
From: "Lichtblau, Dale" <Del@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:52:16 -0500
Message-id: <DC92506CBE953D44A0EF52095965E835029323@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Thanks for your very cogent response (vis-a-vis models vs. theories) (on behalf of John Sowa).

My only remaining question is your claim that: "A *model* of
a theory...in which "0" is interpreted to mean the number 0, [usw--apologies to Paul for the German--yes, the Janik/Toulmin book is wonderful, I have a 1973 1sr edition]". So, the number 0 is in the real world, there's a theory of the real world that denotes the entities of that world via a certain "sign" (i.e., "0"), and there's a "model" that is the "mapping" between the "theory" and the "real world"? Is this right? So a model is just the "mapping"?

I (vaguely) remember doing Henkin-style proofs (of completeness) in modal logic back in the early '70s. The black-board sketches of possible worlds and accessibility relationsips between them were the "model(s)" that served to prove the completeness of the underlying modal logic (T, S4, S5, etc.)? (I guess I never thought deeply enough at the time into the relationship between those "models" and the "theories" there were intended to validate.)

Institute for Defense Analyese

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Menzel [mailto:cmenzel@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Fri 12/16/2005 10:59 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Cc: Lichtblau, Dale
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Theories, Models, Reasoning, Language, and Truth

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:43:15AM -0500, Lichtblau, Dale wrote:
> Do you have anything that explicates your distinction between a
> "model" and a "theory"? I've always thought of them as pretty much the
> same thing. If they do denote two distinct concepts, what, if any, is
> the nature of the relationship between them?

I've been waiting for John to reply, but since he hasn't, let me point
you to his nice little page on the mathematical background to KR:
http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/math.htm .  Note in particular section 13 on
Model Theory.

In a nutshell, in mathematical logic at any rate, a theory is a set of
of sentences in a formal language.  (Some definitions require theories
to be deductively closed as well.)  The axioms of Peano Arithmetic (PA)
constitute a well known theory.  The primitives of the theory are the
numeral "0", a unary function symbol "s", and the binary function symbol
"+" and "*", an the axioms themselves are:

1. (x)~(sx = 0) -- "0 is not the successor of any number."
2. (x)(y)(sx = sy -> x = y) -- "The successor function is one-to-one"
3. (x)(x+0 = x)
4. (x)(y)(x+sy = s(x+y))
5. (x)(x*0 = 0)
6. (x)(y)(x*sy = (x*y)+x)

Induction Schema:
[F(0) & (x)(F(x) -> F(sx))] -> (x)F(x), for any predicate F -- "If 0
has a property F and the successor of x has F if x does, for any x, then
every number has F"

Theories are thus just syntax, sentences in a language.  Models, by
contrast, are *semantic* entities.  To define the notion properly we
first need that of an *interpretation*.  An interpretation of a language
L assigns *meanings* to the basic vocabulary of L (typically,
denotations to names, functions to function symbols, properties and
relations to predicate symbols), and specifies how the meanings of
complex expressions are determined by the meanings of their simpler
parts (a semantic property usually referred to as "compositionality").
In particular, an interpretation specifies how the *truth value* of a
sentence is determined by the meanings of its simpler parts.  (For the
standard "Tarskian" definition of truth, see John's page.)  A *model* of
a theory, then, is an interpretation of the language of the theory that
makes all the sentences of the theory true.  Thus, in particular,
consider the interpretation of the language of PA in which "0" is
interpreted to mean the number 0, "s" the successor function on the
natural numbers, "+" and "*" to mean addition and multiplication on the
natural numbers, and the quantifiers (x) in quantified sentences are
taken to range over the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, ...}.  Under
that intepretation, all the sentences of PA are true, so it is a model
of PA.  (Note that John uses "model" on his page to mean
"interpretation", which is not uncommon.)

There is of course a common and mostly unrelated notion of 'model' that
is typically used to indicate a mathematical or graphical representation
of one thing or another, e.g., a model of a database schema, an
airplane, a business process, etc.

Chris Menzel

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>