Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- From: "H. J. Sander Bruggink" <bruggink@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:45:07 +0100
David C. Ullrich wrote:
An interpretation I for a language consists of a set S, relations
on M, one for each predicate in the language, etc. Given a
sentence w and an interpretation I, w is either true or false
in I. Then by definition a _model_ of w is an interpretation of
the language in which w turns out to be true.
I have never heard of this usage of the word interpretation.
What you call interpretation, I call model. Of course, a
model *of* w is a model in which w is true.
Apparently there exist some different, slightly incompatible,
definitions of these notions.
groente
-- Sander
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- References:
- truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- From: ali_tofigh
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
- Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- From: David C . Ullrich
- truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- Prev by Date: Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- Next by Date: Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- Previous by thread: Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- Next by thread: Re: truth/falsity of sentences in first-order logic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|