SUO: Re: Sorta Languages/Logics
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Robert E. Kent wrote:
>
> Chris et al,
>
> We are probably touching on a fundamental difference between
> my "nonstandard" approach to first-order languages, models and
> theories and the standard approach that you outline - Pat Hayes
> comments [The basic idea of 'model theory' as it is often called
> (a better term would be 'interpretation theory')] notwithstanding.
> I actually use structures (models) and not interpretations as the
> basic building block of my model theory, with a first-order type
> language being one pole (the type half) of the structure (one can
> define interpretation morphisms, but in a secondary way).
>
> This is more abstract (and internal) and there is no syntax-semantics
> distinction - in some sense, everything is semantic.
In that special sense of the word "semantic" wherein everything
semantic is syntactic again, in other words, an affair that is
purely, if not yet platonically, liaised between signs. And yet,
I could call this transcience of signs "semiotic" if only it were
any sort of reflective respectre of objects, but, alas, it is not.
> That is why I use the consistent terminology "entity type"
> and "relation type" in my notion of first-order language.
>
> Robert E. Kent
> rekent@ontologos.org
Oh well,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤