Re: OUTGOEDELING A HUMAN?
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 23 Feb 2007 08:03:47 -0800
abo says...
stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
abo says...
stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
OK let me return to your argument here. Label
Abo's sentence is not universally true.
as (AS). You agree that (AS) is true.
...If L is some interpretation, then
L comes equipped with a domain D_L which specifies the domain
of quantifiers (in this case, we are quantifying over interpretations).
So AS is true in L if there is an interpretation L' in D_L such
that L' interprets AS as false.
This is where I was confused. You talked about true-in-L, where for
me L was a language.
No, truth is dependent on an *interpretation* of a language.
My original discussion used "truth in interpretation i" rather
than "truth in L". That's clearer. There is no truth in L.
And now you're saying L is an interpretation.
Sorry, I was getting your terminology confused with my own.
I'm suggesting that truth is relative to an *interpretation*
rather than relative to a *language*. An interpretation specifies
a language, but not the other way around.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- References:
- OUTGOEDELING A HUMAN?
- From: LauLuna
- Re: OUTGOEDELING A HUMAN?
- From: abo
- OUTGOEDELING A HUMAN?
- Prev by Date: Re: OUTGOEDELING A HUMAN?
- Next by Date: Re: OUTGOEDELING A HUMAN?
- Previous by thread: Re: OUTGOEDELING A HUMAN?
- Next by thread: Re: OUTGOEDELING A HUMAN?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|