Re: POOD and the Unique Name Assumption

From: Brian Selzer <>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:05:19 -0400
Message-ID: <3FE3k.1060$>

"Marshall" <> wrote in message
> On Jun 9, 6:02 am, "Brian Selzer" <> 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.

The Unique Name Assumption ensures that whenever two names are different, the objects they represent must also be different.

> 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

The /result/ of 2+0 is the same as the /result/ of 2-0, but is the meaning of an expression the same as the result of the expression? It seems to me that how one arrives at a result can be just as important as the result. For example, if a man turns left onto the sidewalk in front of his house and then proceeds around the block, he will end up at the exact same place as if he had turned right onto the sidewalk and then proceeded around the block.

> Marshall
Received on Tue Jun 10 2008 - 19:05:19 CDT

Original text of this message