Re: Guessing?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:56:54 -0300
Message-ID: <4873b877$0$4032$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> Fair enough, as far as I understand what you mean. Sometimes we don't
> want to evaluate an expression immediately but instead save the mention
> of it (using some unique name we make up for it) to be used in some
> later calculation. For that purpose is the function name anything more
> than a device or convenience?
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:56:54 -0300
Message-ID: <4873b877$0$4032$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
paul c wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>> paul c wrote: >> >>> Bob Badour wrote: >>> >>>> paul c wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>>>> Since when does a predicate (ie., a conventional FOL predicate) >>>>> mention a relation name? >>>> >>>> Usually when discussing the composition operator. f(g(x)) sort of >>>> thing. >>>> >>>>> (Surely relation names aren't anything but an implementation device.) >>>> >>>> I don't think I entirely agree. >>> >>> Is the mention of g(x) not equivalent to enumerating g(x)? >> >> No, g is just the name of the relation. Composition is usually written >> with some symbol like f*g.
>
> Fair enough, as far as I understand what you mean. Sometimes we don't
> want to evaluate an expression immediately but instead save the mention
> of it (using some unique name we make up for it) to be used in some
> later calculation. For that purpose is the function name anything more
> than a device or convenience?
It's a name. What names do you know that are neither devices nor conveniences?
> Or is there another purpose?
It has the same purpose as any name. Received on Tue Jul 08 2008 - 20:56:54 CEST