On 10/26/2015 6:43 PM, Thomas Johnston wrote:
> I'm fairly well conversant with the concept of intension. (01)
Yes, I'm sure. But the first three pages of Church's book
on lambda calculus (the target of the URL) have short clear
definitions that can be easily applied to both theoretical and
computational systems: http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/alonzo.htm (02)
> Is there any disagreement between us other than in terminology? (03)
I believe it's mainly pedagogical. As someone who has taught
and lectured about AI, logic, ontology, comp. sci., cog. sci.,
etc., I always think about how I would teach a subject. (04)
There's a superabundance of terminology that has accumulated
in all those fields. Instead of inventing new terms, I prefer
to select a coherent set of widely used terms, state clear
definitions for them, and use them as the foundation. (05)
That's the main reason why I would not attempt to revise the
terminology for FOL and set theory. They've been stable for
a century and a half, so I wouldn't rock the boat. There are
many other serious (and perhaps winnable) battles to fight. (06)
John (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 (08)
|