12,080
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Friday November 08, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Cactus Language (view source)
Revision as of 20:42, 26 January 2009
, 20:42, 26 January 2009→Syntactic Transformations: mathematical markup
Besides linking rules together into extended sequences of equivalents, there is one other way that is commonly used to get new rules from old. Novel starting points for rules can be obtained by extracting pairs of equivalent expressions from a sequence that falls under an established rule and then stating their equality in the appropriate form of equation.
Besides linking rules together into extended sequences of equivalents, there is one other way that is commonly used to get new rules from old. Novel starting points for rules can be obtained by extracting pairs of equivalent expressions from a sequence that falls under an established rule and then stating their equality in the appropriate form of equation.
For example, extracting the expressions <math>\text{R3a}\!</math> and <math>\text{R3c}\!</math> that given as equivalents in Rule 3 and explictly stating their equivalence produces the equation recorded in Corollary 1.
For example, extracting the expressions <math>\text{R3a}\!</math> and <math>\text{R3c}\!</math> that are given as equivalents in Rule 3 and explicitly stating their equivalence produces the equation recorded in Corollary 1.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
There are a number of issues, that arise especially in establishing the proper use of STRs, that are appropriate to discuss at this juncture. The notation <math>\downharpoonleft s \downharpoonright</math> is intended to represent ''the proposition denoted by the sentence <math>s.\!</math>'' There is only one problem with the use of this form. There is, in general, no such thing as "the" proposition denoted by <math>s.\!</math> Generally speaking, if a sentence is taken out of context and considered across a variety of different contexts, there is no unique proposition that it can be said to denote. But one is seldom ever speaking at the maximum level of generality, or even found to be thinking of it, and so this notation is usually meaningful and readily understandable whenever it is read in the proper frame of mind. Still, once the issue is raised, the question of how these meanings and understandings are possible has to be addressed, especially if one desires to express the regulations of their syntax in a partially computational form. This requires a closer examination of the very notion of ''context'', and it involves engaging in enough reflection on the ''contextual evaluation'' of sentences that the relevant principles of its successful operation can be discerned and rationalized in explicit terms.
<pre>
<pre>
A sentence that is written in a context where it represents a value of 1 or 0 as a function of things in the universe U, where it stands for a value of "true" or "false", depending on how the signs that constitute its proper syntactic arguments are interpreted as denoting objects in U, in other words, where it is bound to lead its interpreter to view its own truth or falsity as determined by a choice of objects in U, is a sentence that might as well be written in the context "[ ... ]", whether or not this frame is explicitly marked around it.
A sentence that is written in a context where it represents a value of 1 or 0 as a function of things in the universe U, where it stands for a value of "true" or "false", depending on how the signs that constitute its proper syntactic arguments are interpreted as denoting objects in U, in other words, where it is bound to lead its interpreter to view its own truth or falsity as determined by a choice of objects in U, is a sentence that might as well be written in the context "[ ... ]", whether or not this frame is explicitly marked around it.
