Re: NULLs: theoretical problems?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:40:00 -0300
Message-ID: <46d83603$0$4043$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>

JOG wrote:

> On Aug 31, 2:13 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>On 30 aug, 14:08, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I use a similar notion to def in my own work, but am lacking any
>>>references for it. You say that it is an established (or at least
>>>recorded) approach - do you have links to texts, or academic
>>>references? Or does it have a more formal nomenclature that I could
>>>search for > my normally leet googling skills are not serving me well.
>>
>>I'm sorry to say that at the moment I cannot tell you where I got it.
>>The thing that comes closest is Beeson's logic of partial terms, which
>>has an explicit definedness operator for terms. But it lacks the idea
>>of a syntactic restriction that allows you to keep the normal
>>reasoning rules of FOL.

>
>
> "The Foundations of Constructive Mathematics" is not an easy book to
> get hold of...
>
>

>>Btw. while looking for that I did find in comp.theory a list of
>>references on logics dealing with undefinedness. It's probably not
>>useful to you because more than you asked for, but I'm giving it
>>anyway:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.theory/msg/884efa5e74a5f68e

>
>
> thanks for these. Much appreciated.
>
>

>>Of course, if you really want a formal reference I might consider
>>writing a small technical report about it. ;-)

>
>
> I think you should make this a priority! Oh, and don't forget to
> mention me in the acknowledgements as a motivating factor in its
> generation ;)
>
>

>>Kind regards,
>>
>>-- Jan Hidders

>
>
>
> "...not even with these (contraries 'Socrates is well' and 'Socrates
> is sick') is it necessary always for one to be true and the other
> false. For if Socrates exists one will be true and the other false,
> but if he does not both will be false... "
> (Aristotle, Categories, x, 13b12)
>
> Its good to know we've only been thinking about these concepts for
> 2300 years...

... or longer. Received on Fri Aug 31 2007 - 10:40:00 CDT