Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: David C. Ullrich <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 06:42:38 -0500
On 1 Oct 2005 00:53:34 -0700, "William of Ockham"
<d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.
And which of these books concludes that when we learn English
we learn that "x" means 2?
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- References:
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- 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
|