Re: they mention various metaphors and ramble about various concerns (Re: Kuratowski Ordered Pair)

On Dec 22, 11:49 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 22, 1:21 am, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Dec 22, 12:29 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 21, 9:10 pm, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 21, 2:55 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:22 pm, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
it is regularly pointed out in the foundations of math
that the concept of 2 cannot be defined
without some presumption that the parser already has some bivalence

whether in two neighboring symbols
or two different symbols
or some other embedding of the concept innately

pairs

this is not true of higher naturals

This is just syntax again. This is not "the foundations"
of math; this is the syntax of math. We could as well
"write" expression in trees, assembling them via something
like tinker toys, where we have spokes and edges.
Or any of a variety of other ways. Linear strings
of symbols are convenient; don't mistake convenience
for semantics.

there is no mistake

definitions are syntactical

one tries to make the syntax
obtain the desired semantic properties

Huh who what? Syntax has semantic properties?

"Syntax is syntax and semantics is semantics and never the twain shall
meet."

Hmmm. Doesn't have quite the poetic ring to it one might wish.
Still, the point is, syntax doesn't have semantic properties.
So I can't imagine what you mean.

do you have familiarity with formal semantics?
have you read tarski?
do you know any model theory?
interpretations?

Haven't read Tarski. Have read Pierce. Familiar
with operational semantics. Not familiar with denotational
semantics. Have studied parsing. Have studied a variety
programming languages. I know what "interpretations"
and "valuations" are in the context of predicate logic,
say. Am in the market for an intro model theory book.

i can't imagine what you mean by
"never the twain will meet"

Here's a syntax:

eq ::= product ('=' product)*;
product ::= sum ('*' sum)*;
sum ::= name ('+' name)*;
name ::= [a-z]+;

With this syntax, what does

a+b=b+a

evaluate to? True? False? The name of a Swedish music
sensation ("abba"?) Is * associative? Does * distribute
over +?

Or is it the case that the answers depend on the semantics,
independent of the syntax?

the semantics must represent the syntax
it must provide an interpretation

if that interpretation is formalised
providing mathematical structures
that obey a given syntax
then we have model theory
and a rigorous formal theory of semantics

one syntax may have many different semantics
but it is not in any way free or independent

i am sorry you do not know the theory
on the relation between syntax and semantics
but your desire to tell others they are wrong
is telling

i am sorry you have not shown
any reasonable familiarity with foundations
but feel it necessary to tell others off

i am sorry you have demonstrated to me
nothing of any substance in the discussion

it probably is me

the world looks so different to me these days

i see agitprop on all sides

when my perception changes like this
i have to understand the world isn't changing
just my perception

it must be getting time for another of my wars

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: man page syntax for +script
    ... The man pages for [bind] and [comm hook] both describe how you can either replace the current script or append to it, but they give slightly different syntaxes. ... But the syntax for makes it appear that the + and the script are separate arguments, and that caused me some confusion. ... you have a distorted view of what is syntax and what is semantics in Tcl. ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Re: man page syntax for +script
    ... The man pages for and both describe how you can either replace the current script or append to it, but they give slightly different syntaxes. ... But the syntax for makes it appear that the + and the script are separate arguments, and that caused me some confusion. ... The plus is a semantic definition that these two unrelated commands put on their last argument, expr has a very different semantic definition of "+". ... you have a distorted view of what is syntax and what is semantics in Tcl. ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Re: MV Keys
    ... In *practise*, you may not need to worry ... Through creative use of syntax, ... I don't envision a separate language; ... even within the given semantics. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: they mention various metaphors and ramble about various concerns (Re: Kuratowski Ordered Pair)
    ... it means to call x the semantics for syntax y? ... (kind of like your archaic understanding of syntax-semantics ... and i did not see much of substance in response ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
    ... language syntax and semantics unless you think that by adding these ... clearly semantics will not. ... be handwaved away, too, layer after layer. ... Clearly there can be another projection ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)