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

On Dec 22, 5:52 pm, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:49 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

Sure. Isn't that obvious? Isn't that pretty much what
it means to call x the semantics for syntax y?

How come you didn't answer any of my questions?
How come you never answer any of my questions?
How come you ignore pretty much everything I say
pretty much every time and instead just try to find gaps
in my education? Sure, I don't know everything. Neither
do you. Certainly each of us knows some things the
other doesn't.

You got a point to make, make it.


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

And one semantics may have many different syntaxes.
And yet you don't see any independence whatsoever.

*One* way that there is independence is that a question
such as whether some operator is commutative or
associative or not is not informed by the syntax. Whoops!
that's a mistake, talking about the actual subject matter.
You won't respond; you might not even read it for all
I know. Big waste of finger time, trying to make a point
with you.


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

Yes, yes, me and my character flaws again. Maybe
you could go post about this in alt.marshall.spight.sucks
or something. You could be the moderator! You could
be the founding member. Fame and a lucrative modeling
career await you.

However, I'm not exactly stinging on being told off
from someone who can't figure out an unordered pair.


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

God, you are great at rhetoric; I have to hand it to you.
All you have to do is find a book you've read the
other guy hasn't and that invalidates everything the
other guy knows, or says. Works really well because
you've read a lot of books. Looks very flashy, throwing
around all those famous names and all. (But I notice you
dropped the Piaget angle the second it was clear
I knew who you were talking about.)

You suck at actual debate, though. You have to address
the points the other guy is making if you want to have
any substance. You might get away with ignoring his points
once or twice, but over and over again and it's pretty clear
all you want to do is pick apart the other guy's personality.


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

If you just go by what of mine has been quoted and
responded to in your posts, then yeah, I haven't said
crap. However if you go by what you've snipped, then
you have about 15 pending questions to answer.


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

Hello? Hello? I'm over here. We were talking about
pairs, remember? Ordered and unordered collections?


it must be getting time for another of my wars

Ominous and unexplained. Another good rhetorical
technique of yours.


Marshall
.

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)