Re: On Formal IS-A definition
From: David BL <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 19:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51e51149-4a90-4c41-ba7d-68a339786980_at_e34g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 19:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51e51149-4a90-4c41-ba7d-68a339786980_at_e34g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
On May 10, 6:24 pm, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> I don't see any reason to interpret values (and that includes language-
> symbol-values) as anything other than themselves. One should use
> explicit functions to map values to other values as one requires.
I got that wrong. What I should have said is: I don't see any reason to interpret values in the domain of discourse as anything other than themselves.
This includes any language symbols in the domain of discourse, if any - which may arise when logic statements are expressed over a domain concerned with languages. I reject any notion of implicit "nested" interpretations. Received on Tue May 11 2010 - 04:04:43 CEST