Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: "William of Ockham" <d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Oct 2005 00:53:34 -0700
Me:
> An interpretation (as
> >I understand) is the information which we must have about a sentence in
> >order to understand it.
>
> You really haven't been paying attention. I _know_ that that's
> what you understand an interpretation to be. That's one of
> the reasons I say you simply don't understand what you're talking
> about - when we say things like "an interpretation of set theory"
> that is simply _not_ what the word "interpretation" means.
On whether I have understood "interpretation" right (I said it was the
information that must be added to a string of symbols, specifying what
the symbols mean), I looked at three other, presumably authoritative
sources, including Quine and Hodges book on Logic.
1. My dictionary says an interpretation is "An allocation of
significance to the terms of a purely formal system, by specifying
ranges for the variables, denotations for the individual constants &c".
According to Hodges (p222), an interpretation is an abbreviation scheme
which assigns symbols to sentences or schemes in ordinary language.
Thus
J: Sauvignon is the juiciest of Bordeaux grapes
Gx: x is a species of grape
Mxy: x is made out of y
b: Blue Burgundy
c: Pinot Noir
Quine (Methods of Logic 2nd edition p22) says it is a "specification"
of things that must be "imagined" to take place of a letter.
Hodges was also the one (in an introduction model theory) who said an
interpretation is information that must be added to a string of
symbols, specifying what the symbols mean.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|