Tom and Pat. (01)
Tom
>> Predicate logic ignores this distinction. (02)
Pat
> Because it plays no role in assigning truth-conditions of sentences. (03)
Some notations called 'logic' include some built-in ontological
commitments. That may be useful for a special-purpose logic.
But is a good idea for a general-purpose logic? (04)
There are two important issues: (05)
1. What is the ontological commitment of a particular sentence
in any language (natural or artificial)? (06)
2. Should that commitment be implicit in the notation, or should it
be explicitly indicated by the words and syntax of the sentence. (07)
Aristotle assumed that every category had at least one element.
He used that assumption in drawing inferences. But one could
argue that the assumption was independent of his notation. (08)
More generally, you could argue that natural languages are
just as neutral on this issue as FOL. Those examples where
'every' seems to imply 'some' are the result of context-dependent
implications of the kind that Grice (and others) have analyzed. (09)
In short, I don't see any reason to change FOL semantics. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|