Re: Skolem Again
- From: "William of Ockham" <d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Oct 2005 02:20:00 -0700
> True *in some model* of some set of things of which it is "really"
> false. Most of your confusion arises from the fact that you are having
> such trouble distinguishing truth from truth in a model. A little
> knowledge in your case is truly a dangerous thing.
On reflection, that is really my problem. I really don't understand
this 'truth in a model'. "A model is an interpretation of a set of
sentences that makes all the sentences true". But this definition uses
the word 'true'. 'S is true in M' seems to be asserting some relation
between S and M. But what is this relation? How do we define it
without using the word 'true'?
The only way I can approach this, is that the model is, or somehow
contains, the meaning of S. But that leads to bad things, it seems.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Skolem Again
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Skolem Again
- References:
- Skolem Again
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again
- From: Chris Menzel
- Skolem Again
- Prev by Date: Re: Skolem Again
- Next by Date: Re: Skolem Again
- Previous by thread: Re: Skolem Again
- Next by thread: Re: Skolem Again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|