Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox

"William of Ockham" <d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> No, I meant to say what I said.

Well, then I can only observe that "the model that set theory has,
when its sentences express the propositions they ordinarily express"
makes no obvious sense.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Moore on Skolems Paradox
    ... > Well, then I can only observe that "the model that set theory has, ... > when its sentences express the propositions they ordinarily express" ... the meaning which that sentence ordinarily has. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Moore on Skolems Paradox
    ... >> Then change it to, the model that set theory has, when its sentences ... >> express the propositions they ordinarily express, ... > just mean to say that the set of real numbers, or the power set of N, ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Moore on Skolems Paradox
    ... > Then change it to, the model that set theory has, when its sentences ... > express the propositions they ordinarily express, ... just mean to say that the set of real numbers, or the power set of N, ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: FOPL & ST question
    ... > The abstraction symbol seems to be the only un-reducible concept here, ... > always somehow managed to see vanilla propositions without ... > quantification and abstraction behind all quantified expressions (I am ... Propositional logic is inadequate for set theory. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: FOPL & ST question
    ... >> The abstraction symbol seems to be the only un-reducible concept here, ... >> always somehow managed to see vanilla propositions without ... >> quantification and abstraction behind all quantified expressions (I am ... > Propositional logic is inadequate for set theory. ...
    (sci.logic)