MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Friday October 31, 2025
Jump to navigationJump to search
	
	
	
		173 bytes added
	
		,  15:02, 4 February 2009
	
 
| Line 1,585: | Line 1,585: | 
|  | It is important to notice the hidden quantifier, of a universal kind, that lurks in all three equivalent statements but is only revealed in the last. |  | It is important to notice the hidden quantifier, of a universal kind, that lurks in all three equivalent statements but is only revealed in the last. | 
|  |  |  |  | 
| − | In making the next set of definitions and in using the corresponding terminology it is taken for granted that all of the references of signs are relative to a particular sign relation <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I</math> that either remains to be specified or is already understood.  Further, I continue to assume that <math>S = I,</math> in which case this set is called the ''syntactic domain'' of <math>L.\!</math> | + | In making the next set of definitions and in using the corresponding terminology it is taken for granted that all of the references of signs are relative to a particular sign relation <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I</math> that either remains to be specified or is already understood.  Further, I continue to assume that <math>S = I,\!</math> in which case this set is called the ''syntactic domain'' of <math>L.\!</math> | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | In the following definitions, let <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I,</math> let <math>S = I,\!</math> and let <math>x, y \in S.\!</math> |  | In the following definitions, let <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I,</math> let <math>S = I,\!</math> and let <math>x, y \in S.\!</math> | 
| Line 1,619: | Line 1,619: | 
|  | <br> |  | <br> | 
|  |  |  |  | 
| − | <pre>
 | + | The dyadic relation <math>L_{IS}\!</math> that makes up the converse of the connotative relation <math>L_{SI}\!</math> can be defined directly in the following fashion: | 
| − | The dyadic relation RIS thatconstitutes the converse of the connotative relationRSI can be defined directly in the following fashion: |  | 
|  |  |  |  | 
| − | Con(R)^  = RIS  = {<i, s> C IxS :<o, s, i> C R for some oC O}. | + | {| align="center" cellpadding="8" width="90%" | 
|  | + | | <math>\widehat{\operatorname{Con} (L)} ~=~ L_{IS} ~=~ \{ (i, s) \in I \times S ~:~ (o, s, i) \in L ~\text{for some}~ o \in O \}.</math> | 
|  | + | |} | 
|  |  |  |  | 
| − | A few of the many different expressions for this concept are recorded in Definition 9. | + | A few of the many different expressions for this concept are recorded in Definition 9. | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | + | <pre> | 
|  | Definition 9 |  | Definition 9 | 
|  |  |  |  | 
| Line 1,645: | Line 1,647: | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | D9g.	{<i, s> C IxS : <o, s, i> C R for some o C O} |  | D9g.	{<i, s> C IxS : <o, s, i> C R for some o C O} | 
|  | + | </pre> | 
|  |  |  |  | 
|  | + | <pre> | 
|  | Recall the definition of Den(R), the denotative component of R, in the following form: |  | Recall the definition of Den(R), the denotative component of R, in the following form: | 
|  | Den(R)  =  ROS  =  {<o, s> C OxS : <o, s, i> C R for some i C I}. |  | Den(R)  =  ROS  =  {<o, s> C OxS : <o, s, i> C R for some i C I}. |