Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 469–498 | Cite as

Elementary Polyhedral Mereotopology

  • Ian Pratt-Hartmann
  • Dominik Schoop

Abstract

A region-based model of physical space is one in which the primitive spatial entities are regions, rather than points, and in which the primitive spatial relations take regions, rather than points, as their relata. Historically, the most intensively investigated region-based models are those whose primitive relations are topological in character; and the study of the topology of physical space from a region-based perspective has come to be called mereotopology. This paper concentrates on a mereotopological formalism originally introduced by Whitehead, which employs a single primitive binary relation C(x,y) (read: “x is in contact with y”). Thus, in this formalism, all topological facts supervene on facts about contact. Because of its potential application to theories of qualitative spatial reasoning, Whitehead's primitive has recently been the subject of scrutiny from within the Artificial Intelligence community. Various results regarding the mereotopology of the Euclidean plane have been obtained, settling such issues as expressive power, axiomatization and the existence of alternative models. The contribution of the present paper is to extend some of these results to the mereotopology of three-dimensional Euclidean space. Specifically, we show that, in a first-order setting where variables range over tame subsets of R3, Whitehead's primitive is maximally expressive for topological relations; and we deduce a corollary constraining the possible region-based models of the space we inhabit.

mereotopology ontology of space spatial reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Borgo, S., Guarino, N. and Masolo, C.: A pointless theory of space based on strong connection and congruence, in L. C. Aiello, J. Doyle, and S. C. Shapiro (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference (KR '96), 1996, pp. 220-229.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, C. C. and Keisler, H. J.: Model Theory, 3rd edn, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, B. L.: A calculus of individuals based on "connection", Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 22(3) (1981), 204-218.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, B. L.: Individuals and points, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 26(1) (1985), 61-75.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Laguna, T.: Point, line, and surface as sets of solids, J. Philos. 19 (1922), 449-461.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dornheim, C.: Undecidability of plane polygonal mereotopology, in A. G. Cohn, L. K. Schubert, and S. C. Schubert (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference (KR '98), 1998, pp. 342-353.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galton, A.: Qualitative Spatial Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gotts, N. M., Gooday, J. M. and Cohn, A. G.: A connection based approach to commonsense topological description and reasoning, Monist 79(1) (1996), 51-75.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hodges, W.: Model Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koppelberg, S.: Handbook of Boolean Algebras, Vol. 1, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massey, W. S.: Algebraic Topology: An Introduction, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Newman, M. H. A.: Elements of the Topology of Plane Sets of Points, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1964.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papadimitriou, C. H., Suciu, D. and Vianu, V.: Topological queries in spatial databases, in Proceedings of PODS'96, 1996, pp. 81-92.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pratt, I. and Lemon, O.: Ontologies for plane, polygonal mereotopology, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 38(2) (1997), 225-245.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pratt, I. and Schoop, D.: A complete axiom system for polygonal mereotopology of the real plane, J. Philos. Logic 27(6) (1998), 621-658.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pratt, I. and Schoop, D.: Expressivity in polygonal, plane mereotopology, J. Symbolic Logic 65(2) (2000), 822-838.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Randell, D. A., Cui, Z. and Cohn, A. G.: A spatial logic based on regions and connection, in B. Nebel, C. Rich, and W. Swartout (eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference (KR '92), 1992, pp. 165-176.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simons, P.: Parts: A Study in Ontology, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van den Dries, L.: O-minimal structures, in W. Hodges, M. Hyland, C. Steinhorn, and J. Truss (eds.), Logic: From Foundations to Applications, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996, pp. 137-186.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Whitehead, A. N.: Process and Reality, Macmillan, New York, 1929.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilson, R. J.: Introduction to Graph Theory, Longman, London, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Pratt-Hartmann
    • 1
  • Dominik Schoop
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterU.K.

Personalised recommendations