Re: SUPPORT FOR DECLARATIVE TRANSITION CONSTRAINTS

Brian wrote:

>Definite descriptions are terms. They're complex terms, but they're
>terms nonetheless.
>
>"the employee named paul c" differs from "there is one and only one
>employee named paul c" in that under an interpretation, "the employee
>named paul c" maps to an element in the domain of discourse whereas
>"there is one and only one employee named paul c" maps to an element
>in the domain of truth values.

Yes, logicians tend to model the meaning of language in this way; but it is a flawed, or at the least very simplistic, way of modeling. And language-specific, too: articles such as 'the' don't exist in many languages.

>'The x such that Qx' expresses that there is exactly one x that
>satisfies Q, but it is also a term: it is exactly that x that
>satisfies Q. Of course if there is no x such that Q, then the
>definite description fails to denote, and as a consequence any atomic
>formula that references the description is, by definition, false,
>along with the expression, 'there is exactly one x that satisfies Q.'

Is the negation of (any statement containing) such an atomic formula true or false?

>> > is the only place where "the employee named paul c" is referenced in
>> > the database, then under the domain closure assumption,  DELETEing
>> > that tuple not only denies the propsition that it represents, but also
>> > denies the proposition "there is an employee named paul c."
>>
>> No.  The latter proposition is irrelevant to the business at hand.
>
>How can you possibly make such a bald assumption?

Is paul c. the king of France in disguise?

><snip>

-- 
Reinier