[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:06:01 -0500
Message-id: <CFA78894-73E7-441B-87D1-048F6B5CB2E2@xxxxxxx>

On Sep 15, 2008, at 11:12 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:    (01)

> Pat,
> PH> But now we get back to my earlier objection. Propositions, in
>> this sense, might as well be sentences: a set of propositions is
>> just a set of sentences with an equivalence defined on it.
> I agree that the additional equivalence relation does not make
> any critical difference.  In my note to Chris, I agreed that it
> would have been better to use the word 'sentence' since it would
> have avoided that distracting point.
> PH> A Kripke structure does not itself define a particular language
>> to interpret against it, so your mapping from Kripke to Dunn
>> seems to be under-defined.
> It certainly doesn't determine the syntax, but it definitely
> determines semantics.  That's the whole point of a model.    (02)

Of course, but that is beside the point. Your construction takes a  
Kripke structure - no mention there of a language or a signature - and  
begins by mentioning a set of [sentences] ..  And my point is simply  
that no such set is defined by the Kripke structure. You still have  
not defined it. Until you do, your construction isn't well-defined.  
What is the signature of the language? Does it have binary relations  
in it? Etc. . It's not enough to say 'use FOL' or some such reply.  
That does not determine a set of sentences.    (03)

Pat    (04)

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    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>