On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:17 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
> From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email>
>
> I wouldn't put it that way. "k" is as always merely a variable
> separator. The binder would be "f", and it binds all the variables
> that appear in its desinence except for the first one.
> A yes, the old problem of connectives looking like quantifiers looking like variables, looking like whatever -- not a very perspicuous language so far.
Connectives all start with j-, quantifiers are r- and s- and variables
are all vowels, so I don't see why you say they all look alike.
But they all end with strings of vowels -- and the restrictions which you now propose are not the ones from last week or the week before (nor has the public record kept up).
> And f isn't a binder either, just a predicate maker.
So far it wasn't, but Mike's proposal is that it be a binder, binding
all variables in its desinence except for the first one.
But then it is not a predicate maker, apparently -- although you have not yet got your various syntactic types laid out well (this is a new one if as described). How is it to be instantiated?
> We have not so far seen any need to distinguish propositions from
> states of affairs, or rather, we've had no need to refer to
> propositions, so you can think of it as the holed version of a state
> of affairs.
> Well, someday you will have to deal with beliefs and the like and so will have to deal somehow with propositions.
Instead of "krcake" meaning "a believes that proposition e is true",
we can have it mean "a believes that state of affairs e holds", so we
don't really need to refer to propositions in order to deal with
beliefs.
But krici lo du'u doesn't mean "believe the proposition is true", it means "believes the proposition". You still have the proposition "that the state of affairs holds", you just have not marked it (nor clearly expressed it).
> "It" being? multivalent properties or multivalent propositional functions or what?
I think "it" was supposed to be "la fakeki prmeki".
Which I gather is now a lambda function.
The levels of use-mention confusions and type-crossing are getting a little thick here, so I need to try and figure out just what you are really saying as opposed to what you seem to be saying and what you probably mean. Going back to basic groundrules would help here as it has on the past go-rounds in these areas.
co ma'a xrxe