|From:||Simon Spero <ses@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:14:39 -0400|
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:|
I have been taken to task by some very competent logicians for calling CL first-order, as they are using a purely syntactic criterion of order. Nobody is right in debates like this[...]
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong...
But I didn't come here to talk order, law and or otherwise. I came here to talk about CL, types/sorts, and syntax. All of the concrete syntactic sugar to allow variables to be constrained to satisfy some one-place predicate. However, the semantics are explicitly and deliberately designed so that type errors lead to sentences which are always false, rather than being syntax errors.
Was a sorted dialect of CL ever proposed?
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] type free logic and higher order quantification, k Goodier|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] type free logic and higher order quantification, Christopher Menzel|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] type free logic and higher order quantification, Rick Murphy|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Sorted for ∃s and whizz (was Re: type free logic and higher order quantification), Pat Hayes|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|