Re: Guessing?
From: paul c <toledobysea_at_ac.ooyah>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:58:54 GMT
Message-ID: <2f5dk.87518$gc5.25337_at_pd7urf2no>
>
> Logical propositions without an intended interpretation are when written
> just squiggles--something akin to doodles--with no significance or utility
> whatsoever, and are when spoken just noise--they do not rise even to the
> level of being a tale told by an idiot: they're just noise.
> ...
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:58:54 GMT
Message-ID: <2f5dk.87518$gc5.25337_at_pd7urf2no>
Brian Selzer wrote:
> "JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:8c2c5f39-1c06-488b-a2c2-378614f20393_at_34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> I get tired of these confusions concerning "meaning". There is no >> meaning in a proposition. None. Meaning exists in our heads and >> nowhere else. Logical propositions are purely syntactic, and RA is a >> purely mathematical formalism no different to geometry say. >>
>
> Logical propositions without an intended interpretation are when written
> just squiggles--something akin to doodles--with no significance or utility
> whatsoever, and are when spoken just noise--they do not rise even to the
> level of being a tale told by an idiot: they're just noise.
> ...
JOG wasn't complaining about the word 'interpretation'. I think he meant that a discipline or machine that follows logical rules to manipulate symbols can't be allowed to imbue them with meaning on the way by without risking the introduction of illogical results, for example, contradictions. It seems that SQL does fall into this trap, not just posters like Joe C who give fractional 'propositions' and expect unwritten meaning to be divined by the reader. Received on Wed Jul 09 2008 - 17:58:54 CEST