- From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:39:17 +0100
- To: public-cwm-talk@w3.org
- Cc: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
On 27 Apr 2010, at 09:26, Story Henry wrote:
>>> Tarski's famous T-schema
>>>
>>> T: "P" is true iff P
>>>
>>> where
>>>
>>> "P" is a statement in the object language
>>>
>>> P is a statement in the meta-language
>
> Ok, I think I see where you may be getting at.
>
> That is we think of what is inside the { } brackets as the meaning of the sentence,
> (the set of possible worlds in which the sentences inside the brackets are true), then
> "is True" is perhaps the wrong predicate, as far as it does not seem to be getting us from
> meta language to object language but from meaning to object language. Ie, instead of
> having a relation that goes from sentences to meaning, we have something that goes from
> meaning to fact. (what is in my graph is a fact for the person believing the graph).
>
> In that case log:Truth is more like a modal concept, and really means "is Actual".
> So from the perspective of any graph, what is stated therein is something that is
> thought to be True in the actual world, and so which could have direct behavioural
> implications. Being Actual is an indexical into possible worlds, just like 'here'
> is an indexical in space, and 'now' in time, and 'I' for the subject.
>
> So perhaps { jack loves jane } a log:Actual is what we want (interesting how the word
> Act appears in Actual)
In fact come to think of it log:semantics is in fact Tarski's function T (or at least sufficiently
similar, that people like Donald Davidson then built a theory of meaning on it), as it relates strings to meanings. And log:Truth should be as stated above log:Actual .
Anyway, it does not matter as we know what our actual URLs do - but wait, that is language as use!
;-)
Henry
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 15:39:56 UTC