Re: What predicates the following relation represents

From: Mikito Harakiri <>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:14:04 -0800
Message-ID: <r7Zac.24$>

"mAsterdam" <> wrote in message news:406bd2b2$0$567$
> I'll (reluctantly) join the speculation a little bit to explain,
> I will try to conform to the guesswork Eric has done:
> |--SALE(Nuts, 0)
> may mean something like: Mr FooBar sold 0 nuts today.
> |--!exists x>0: SALE(Nuts, x)
> may mean something like: Mr FooBar did not sell nuts today.
> Do they convey the same fact? Not by itself. Maybe they do,
> but we don't have what we need to decide it.

What exactly is missing?

> Maybe we could decide if we knew wether mr FooBar tried
> to sell nuts today.
> This is not in the information we were provided with, so even more
> speculation is called for. This does not seem very useful.
> Most of the guessing would be unnecessay if there would have been
> something to go on at the start: the predicate.

How do you expand the example in order to resolve the ambiguity. I prefer formal solution, not just vague call for "more semantics".

> > If you refer me to Model theory, let me think it over.
> Not that I am aware of. Which model theory?

I was just playing with the correspondence: Syntax -> Logic
Semantics -> Model Theory

> >>To achieve conceptual integrity one needs concepts.
> >
> > Be careful using the same abstract word twice in the sentence.
> Where is the danger in this one?

Conceptually speaking might jeopardize listener's conceptual integrity. Received on Thu Apr 01 2004 - 20:14:04 CEST

Original text of this message