Azamat,
People observe the intension/extension distinction
without learning the name for the distinction.
AA>It
implies that operational meanings or definitions could be more
significant than an intension/extension or representation/reference or
connotation/denotation dichotomy.
Languages
Helmut,
In every version of language and logic -- ancient or
modern, informal or formal -- the intensional definition is fundamental.
It corresponds to the definition you'll find in a typical dictionary of
any natural language or in any formal specification in science,
engineering, business, o
Azamat, Helmut, John, All ...
We (some of us) have doggedly chased our assorted masters down this road
so many times before I could hardly e-numerate them all especially since
the lion's share of their spoors long ago disapparated from the live web.
But here's just a trace I found of an early re
John,
yes, but isn´t it so, that in mathematics and symbolic logic, if the extension is known i.e. covered by proofs, an intensional term can be equivalent with an extensional one, and this is called "classical logic"? That is, if I am right, that e.g. "NOT (A AND NOT B)" is extensional, and me
