Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: "William of Ockham" <d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Oct 2005 09:05:55 -0700
I said:
> What we call "learning a
>language" is assigning a reference to all of the terms that we learn.
>So we learn that "hamburgers" mean hamburgers, "Socrates" means
>Socrates, "two"means the number two, and so on. An interpretation (as
>I understand) is the information which we must have about a sentence in
>order to understand it.
>So by "set theory as expressed in some language *English" I mean the
>language+ the interpretation given to it as a part of learning the
>language itself.'
>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".
I'm sorry, I can't see anywhere here where I said that "x" means two.
Obviously learning a language means learning how quantifiers like
"all", "some", "any", "no" &c are used. This obviously does not mean
"assigning a reference". Quite the opposite. That's why the
traditional logicians called the quantifiers "syncategoremata" -
co-signifying words, words which do not have a meaning in their own
right, but which qualify the meaning of other words. I thought that
was too obvious to mention.
Perhaps I should not have said "all of the terms that we learn". If
that caused the confusion, sorry.
Except, qualifying this apology, a quantifier is not strictly speaking
a "term".
.
- 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
- 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: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
- Previous by thread: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|