Re: SUO: Re: In Praise of Zeroth Order Logic
Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> ZOL SIG:
>
> I am about to put forth a claim of the following form:
>
> | X is better than Y for the purpose Z.
>
> I was going to leave this claim implicit, in the customary way
> that all of us typically embed such claims within our conduct,
> and only respond when challenged in the "Well, why would I be
> doing this if I didna think it better!?" sort of way that all
> of us starship engineers have no doubt been trained to by now.
>
> More specifically, I am concerned with a claim of the form:
>
> | Language X is better than Language Y for the purpose
> | of representing the 'associated domain of objects' Z.
>
> I can declare my stake in a claim of this form by indexing
> it to myself, as an agent, interpreter, observer, whatever,
> perhaps in something like the following form:
>
> | Language X is better than Language Y for the purpose
> | of representing the 'associated domain of objects' Z,
> | so says I.
>
> At this point I might choose to create a specialized bit of syntax:
>
> | [I <: Agent] :=>
> | [Representing Z <: Pragma] :
> | [Language X] ->[Better <: Order]-> [Language Y].
>
> Paraphrasing:
>
> | I, the agent of this claim, assert that
> | the aim, end, or object of representing Z
> | makes Language X look better than Language Y.
>
> This is ostencilly a four-place rheme,
> but there is yet another modification
> that would be customary to work on it.
>
> More abstractly, in the sense of extracting the particular measure
> of order, the one that is implied or signified by the word "better",
> and withdrawing it to a parametric position within the claim form,
> I might choose to write this alternative form:
>
> | [ I <: Agent,
> | Better <: Order,
> | Representing Z <: Pragma
> | ]
> | :
> | [Language X] ->- [Language Y].
>
> Of course, a lot more could be said about what we might
> conceivably mean by "better", but I will leave that to
> your imagination for now, though, as I imagine you can
> imagine, I will have a few bits to add to the account,
> but later. I just hope that my account in heaven is
> not reckoned up in mod 2 arithmetic!
>
> Many Regards,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
ZOL SIG:
Sorry, but it has been so long that I have to quote
myself again just to remember where I was last time.
From my station as a Specialist Zeroth Class in Logic,
I can barely see the knees of this lumbering beast --
I think it's an elephant that's rolling this Logos --
Yes, I'm sure of it now, just look:
<http://math.gc.cuny.edu/Logic/MAMLS/>
Okay, so I was about to make a claim of the form:
| Language X is better than Language Y for the purpose
| of representing the 'associated domain of objects' Z.
Now, on the face of it, such a claim seems wholly outlandish.
If I were to say "French is better than German for purpose Z",
you would probably suspect that my discourse was on the point
of degenerating into specious cliches, if not downright slurs.
From common experience, you know that one language may indeed
have the felicities of an especially apt phrase at one point,
where another language would require a clumsy circumlocution
in order to translate it, but that the advantage, if there
is one, will be very likely to shift from point to point
across any domain of discourse that anyone might choose.
And so it could only be in a very restricted area of discourse,
say, Propositional Calculus, where our Political Correctness
is not at risk, that I would even dare to make such a claim.
But then -- if I restrict my claim to the level of PC, SL, ZOL --
I now seem to have the opposite sorts of problems with making
it seem interesting or plausible at all:
1. Who cares? What is there to get excited about?
2. Not a bit! Isn't it rather obviously mistaken?
And this would seem clear from the fact that every syntax for
Propositional Calculus, that was even worthy of carrying the
name, would have to be as logically indiscernible from its
cohorts as yet another pebble on the shore, would it not?
Not a bit!
But it does become clear from this reflection that our discussion
must leave the realm of pure logic and dabble in the tidepools of
pragmatic issues.
The Art is Long,
The Day is Gone,
Later, And Anon,
Jon
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤