http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
선형운동가이드용 블록 연삭 공정 시뮬레이션 및 개선에 대한 연구
조명동,박준기,홍성욱 國立金烏工科大學校 産業技術開發硏究院 2002 産業技術開發硏究 Vol.18 No.-
This paper presents a result of simulation and improvement of grinding process for linear motion guide blocks. A simulation software, which is based on cylindrical grinding process, is used to predict the grinding wheel wear during the grinding process for linear motion guide blocks. To validate the simulation, the simulation results is compared with the experimental one. Simulation study is extended to obtain an optimal grinding condition for minimizing the grinding wheel wear. The optimal condition is validated through an experiment. A multi-objective optimization is also performed by applying the desirability function and overlaid contour plot techniques. The optimal solution which is the result of optimization to the grinding condition, is applied to reduce the grinding wheel wear and surface roughness.
‘불가능으로의 환원’으로 입증되는 우연논증의 결론의 양상성
조명동 한국외국어대학교 철학과문화연구소 2008 철학과 문화 Vol.17 No.-
‘불가능으로의 환원’에 의한 증병은 아리스토텔레스가 소위 불완전한 연역 추론의 논식들의 타당성을 증명하기 위해 사용한 도구들 중의 하나이다. 그가 주로 사용한 방법은 환위이고 그것을 통해 그는 2격과 3격의 논식들을 1격의 논식들로 환원할 수 있었다. 그러나 그가 증명방법으로 환위를 사용할 수 없을 때에는, 즉 그 추론이 특칭 부정 진술을 포함하고 있을 때에는, 그는‘불가능으로의 환원’을 사용한다. 양상추론의 경우에는 이‘불가능으로의 환원’이 불완전한 연역추론 논식들의 타당성을 증명하기 위해 거의 사용되어지지 않는다. 왜냐하면 양상추론의 진술들의 양상성은‘불가능의 환원’과정에서 그대로 보존되지 않기 때문이다. 그러나 우연추론의 특정한 경우들에서 아리스토텔레스는 그것들의 타당성을 증명하기 위해 이‘불가능으로의 환원’을 사용한다. 이 글을 통해서 나는 그의 증명방법을 재검토해보고, 그리고 그의 설명의 적절성을 검토해 보고자 한다. Proof by 'reductio ad impossibile' is one of devices that Aristotle uses for demonstrations of validities of the so-called imperfect syllogistic moods. His main method of them is a conversion by which moods of the second and third figures can be reduced into ones of the first one. But when he can not use it for demonstration, because the syllogism contains particular and negative statements, in some cases he uses 'reductio ad impossibile'. In the cases of modal syllogism 'reductio ad impossibile' is scarcely used for demonstrations of validities of imperfect syllogistic moods. Because modality of statement of modal syllogism can not be preserved in the course of 'reductio ad impossibile'. But in special moods of contingent syllogism Aristotle uses it for demonstration of their validities. In this paper I explicate his demonstrations of them and examine an adequateness of his exposition.
조명동(Cho, Myoung Dong) 한국외국어대학교 철학문화연구소 2007 철학과 문화 Vol.14 No.-
아리스토텔레스의 양상논리는 그의 양상 개념들이 진술 외적이기 보다는 진술 내적인 것으로 해석되어져야 하므로 그의 형이상학적 체계들, 특히 목적론이나 그의 속성이론들과의 관계 속에서 이해되어져야만 한다. This writing is begun from my simple question, 'Why did Aristotle make the system of his modal logic?" Since I have thought a modal logic to be abstruse and different from a simple one, I thought that it was odd that Aristotle made not only a mature logic but also a modal one. But when I met the discussion on inferences in Aristotle's works, I found the fact that Aristotle didn't deal with a modal ones separately. Aristotle discussed only in turn three types of statements. Then he went on to discuss various types of syllogism made of those three kinds of statements. Really, after he discussed on an assertoric statement, an apodeictic, and a problematic one, then he went on to discuss on various types of syllogism in turn, for example a syllogism with two assetoric statements, with two apodeictic, with an apodeictic and an assertoric, with two problematic, with a problematic and an assertoric, and with a problematic and an apodeictic one. Unlike modern logicians, he didn't make a division between a simple and a modal syllogism. Instead, he made various discussions of syllogisms that could be made of three types of statements in his hands. He dealt with modal statements and syllogisms as if they were simple ones. Why did Aristotle make discussions on them without any division? The reason is that for Aristotle modal expressions are not exteral to, but interal to statements. Thus his modal terms have to do with essential characteristics of statements. For Aristotle, a statement expresses a relationship of terms. Then a modal expression of statement would expose a modal relationship of these terms. Moreover, since a statement reflects an aspect of this world, his modal terms might have a strong relation to his view of this world. Then his modality has to do strongly with his world's view and metaphysical system, especially a theory of property. And bringing out a connexion between Aristotle's modal expressions, especially "necessity" and "contingency", and his metaphysical system and world's view, and exposing that his modal terms reflect an aspect of this world, I assert his modal terms to be internal to a statement, and I declare that it is just natural for him to include his modal syllogism into the whole system of his syllogism because his modal syllogism is also to this world.