Dear Steven,
You wrote:
> Dear Kristi,
> I feel in some sense that I offered you a trick question, and for this I
> apologize.
I did think your question was posed as a trick question. But I chose not to
take it that way. I chose to take it as a true question. - You feel a need to
apologize? -
Jim, Irving, John, Peter, list,
Thank you for the added comment, Jim. I've been stealing time to try to rummage
through online sources but this subject is very abstract for me. I'll just have
to remove the problematic sentence pending clarification.
Best, Ben
- Original Message -
Fro
Ben, Thanks for all the work on Wiki. Here is a quick distillation of the
idea. A signature such as { ~, &, NEG, POS} might be adequate for modeling the
Boolean functions of propositional logic. (In fact, G. Hunter in "Metalogic,
1970 U. Cal. Press attributes the discovery that {~,&} is the sm
Ben, One quick further thought. If the pretension to a "universal language" is
so great that one does not consider a comparison of models, then it becomes
easier to see the pairing of "proof-theoretic/universalist." So, maybe Frege
would historically be seen this way. (absolute model) On the ot
Jim, list,
Yes, I was just reading an article that said that Van Heijenoort said that
Frege's logic has just one universe of discourse, whereas others allowed
variations. Frege as "unic-universalist" (my word) rather than merely
universalist.
Van Heijenoort lists two further consequences of t
