Re: SUO: *Date 20 Apr 2002 -- Theory Bleary
On 4/20/02 6:00, "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu> wrote:
>
> €~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€
>
> Theory Bleary
>
> I have been making a dedicated effort to take this
> first-order logic, formal semantics, model theory
> approach to our so-called real existence seriously,
> and maybe it's just the end of the week let-down,
> but there just seems to be some definite problems.
>
> The kicker came when I ran into the first-order
> description of 'group theory' as it comes to be
> embedded within these layers of formal batting.
> Here is an abridged version of what it takes to
> say what a 'group' is, as a model of a certain
> first order theory -- patience, it takes a bit:
Jon,
First let me say that I agree with your frustration. A couple of comments,
however:
a) Everything you wrote before getting to the axioms for Group
Theory is supposed to be considered background for anyone who
wants to use logic to talk about mathematical (or any other)
theory. Thus, it's a bit of a red herring to complain about
the weight of machinery involved.
b) I can't imagine what the machinery would look like to talk about
our talking about Group Theory in English, for example. In that
sense, FOL looks a lot simpler to me. Did you have some other
mechanism other than natural language in mind?
.bill