Re: SUO: Re: Numbrance Of Times Perished
>¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
>Pat Hayes wrote:
> >
> > [John Sowa wrote:]
> > >
> > > Pat,
> > >
> > > We went round and round on this issue before,
> > > so I don't want to repeat the experience.
> >
> > I didnt go round and round on this issue.
> > I wrote a review of Burch's thesis which
> > I believe settled the matter conclusively.
> > (J. Man-Machine Studies, 1995)
> >
>...
> >
> > Had Peirce or Whitehead lived a little longer maybe they would have
> > become aware of the fact that any n-ary relation can be defined in
> > terms of binary relations, with the aid of the existential quantifier.
> > The translation, as I know you know, John, is this:
> >
> > R(t1, ..., tn)
> > --->
> > (exists e)(R(e) & first(e, t1) & second(e, t2) & ... & nth(e, tn))
>
>What this translation says is just this:
>
>| t in R iff there is an e in R such that e = t.
>
>I think that the total lack of any analysis in this ought to be evident
1. That isn't what it in fact says (even in the case n=1, it says
"..if there is an e in R such that first(e,t)"), but in any case
2. It doesnt puport to be any kind of ANALYSIS, only a
transliteration. The existence of the transliteration establishes the
claim made: that anything that can be said, can be said using at most
binary relations. It is a very simple point, and like most simple
points, it seems silly to exercise lots of energy denying it, when
its truth is as plain as the nose on your face.
Pat Hayes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes