To: |
"[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|

From: |
"John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> |

Date: |
Tue, 25 Dec 2007 02:35:41 -0500 |

Message-id: |
<4770B2CD.10505@xxxxxxxxxxx> |

John B, (01) This thread has been ranging over too many complicated questions at the same time. It may be be better to clarify one narrow point at a time and relate them later. (02) So let me put aside the following very important topics: natural languages, psychology, percepts, perception, Semantic Web, practical applications, and all philosophical issues about the meaning of 'meaning'. (03) I don't want to forget them forever, but I just want to ignore them for the moment in order to clarify one single issue: a Tarski-style model-theoretic semantics. (04) What Tarski did is to define a formal method for evaluating the truth values of sentences in terms of a model. Following are the basic ideas: (05) 1. Some formal language L, which would typically be some version of logic. For the present, we can assume that L is some dialect of Common Logic, but the same ideas would apply to a much larger range of logics. (06) 2. The notion of a set D called the _domain_, which contains all the individual objects or entities that are being considered. Sometimes D is called the _universe of discourse_. (07) 3. The notion of a model M, which consists of some domain D and a set R of relations, which relate objects in D. For example, if r is a dyadic relation in R, then for any x and y in the domain D, r(x,y) has the truth value T or F. In general, R may contain monadic, dyadic, triadic, or arbitrary n-adic relations (CL also allows 0-adic relations, which may be considered proposition constants.) (08) 4. The notion of an evaluation function Phi, which for any sentence s in L and any model M, determines a truth value T or F. That is, (09) For every sentence s in L and model M, Phi(s,M) = T or F. (010) If you want to read what Tarski himself said, I put a copy of his 1944 paper on the subject on my web site: (011) http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/tarski.htm The Semantic Conception of Truth (012) This is a more discursive tutorial on the subject than Tarski's original paper from 1933. Many people have complained that there is more to meaning than what Tarski said, and he would have agreed. His title was not "The Meaning of 'meaning'", but a more modest claim "The Semantic Conception of Truth". (013) John Sowa (014) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015) |

Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] CL, CG, IKL and the relationship between symbols in the logical "universe of discourse" and individuals in the "real world", Pat Hayes |
---|---|

Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] CL, CG, IKL and the relationship between symbols in the logical "universe of discourse" and individuals in the "real world", Christopher Spottiswoode |

Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] CL, CG, IKL and the relationship between symbols in the logical "universe of discourse" and individuals in the "real world", Pat Hayes |

Next by Thread: | Christopher Spottiswoode |

Indexes: | [Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |