Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: "William of Ockham" <d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Oct 2005 08:31:51 -0700
>
> And which of these books concludes that when we learn English
> we learn that "x" means 2?
>
>
> ************************
>
> David C. Ullrich
Where on EARTH am I meant to have said this????!!!!!
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".
Setting a range for a variable is not the same as specifying a
reference for the individual constants.
An interpretation specifies the semantics of a language. That includes
specifying what possible values the variables can take. Bloody hell.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- References:
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
- 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):