Re: POOD and the Unique Name Assumption

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ca56ebe8-5736-4de9-af01-b635c8baece1@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>


On Jun 9, 6:02 am, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> Does the Unique Name Assumption apply only to individuals, or does it apply
> also to relations? Under an interpretation where constant symbols are
> mapped to individuals and predicate symbols are mapped to relations, if a
> and b are constant symbols and P and Q predicate symbols and if neither aPb
> nor aQb fail to denote, can aPb ever mean exactly the same thing as aQb?
>
> And if the Unique Name Assumption does apply also to relations, then what
> impact does that have on POOD?

I guess I don't really know what this "Unique Name Assumption" is. But ordinarily, the mapping from names to things being named is a function, but not necessarily the reverse.

As to whether aPb can ever mean the same thing as aQb:

  2+0 = 2-0

Marshall Received on Tue Jun 10 2008 - 01:28:49 CDT

Original text of this message