Re: Semantics necessary not sufficient (was: Re: What is "the serious bug in entailment semantics" found by J. Perez"?)

On 11 Aug 2006, at 22:30, Pat Hayes wrote:

> I think the style of definition that you came up with originally,  
> involving 'reversible skolemization', would work.

Indeed.

--e.

Received on Friday, 11 August 2006 21:08:00 UTC