ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories

 To: "[ontolog-forum] " Christopher Menzel Mon, 8 Feb 2010 23:26:23 -0600 <70346279-5B15-4EA1-8B3B-8C4E8E6947A0@xxxxxxxx>
 ```On Feb 8, 2010, at 10:56 PM, John F. Sowa wrote: > Chris > > JFS>> I agree with Wittgenstein that x=y is a statement about the >>> names x and y, rather than a statement about the subject domain. >>> In any case, I don't want to get into metaphysical arguments >>> about the nature of identity. > > CM> Good thing, John, since you're wrong.    (01) Bad form, John, you left off the smiley! :-) <-- LEAVE THAT ALONE    (02) > Please note that I was making a comment about the expression "x=y", > not about the following two statements, which are definitely > about the the subject domain: > > Theory T1: (Ex)(Ay)(y=x). > > Theory T2: (Ex)(Ey)~(x=y).    (03) I don't understand how the truth recursion will work for these sentences. Consider    (04) (*) (Ex)(y)Pxy.    (05) Unpacked according to Tarski, (*) is true just in case, for some object b (in the domain of the model), for every object c, is in the set assigned to "P". The variables "x" and "y" drop out of the picture and ultimately play no role whatever in the truth conditions of the sentence. According to your suggest, if I'm understanding, "x" and "y" themselves occur in the truth conditions of "x=y" and, hence, I assume in the truth conditions of "(Ex)(Ay)(y=x)". I just don't see how that's going to work. Choice of variables is incidental; that is reflected in et fact that they don't occur in Tarskian truth conditions.    (06) -chris    (07) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (08) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Christopher Menzel [ontolog-forum] White House "Challenge" call, Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] White House "Challenge" call, Pavithra Re: [ontolog-forum] White House "Challenge" call, Frank Olken Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Christopher Menzel <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Ian Bailey