Changes

→‎Propositions and Sentences: delete reconciled variants
Line 65: Line 65:     
<pre>
 
<pre>
The "binary domain" is the set !B! = {!0!, !1!} of two algebraic values,
  −
whose arithmetic operations obey the rules of GF(2), the "galois field"
  −
of exactly two elements, whose addition and multiplication tables are
  −
tantamount to addition and multiplication of integers "modulo 2".
  −
  −
The "boolean domain" is the set %B% = {%0%, %1%} of two logical values,
  −
whose elements are read as "false" and "true", or as "falsity" and "truth",
  −
respectively.
  −
  −
At this point, I cannot tell whether the distinction between these two
  −
domains is slight or significant, and so this question must evolve its
  −
own answer, while I pursue a larger inquiry by means of its hypothesis.
  −
The weight of the matter appears to increase as the investigation moves
  −
from abstract, algebraic, and formal settings to contexts where logical
  −
semantics, natural language syntax, and concrete categories of grammar
  −
are compelling considerations.  Speaking abstractly and roughly enough,
  −
it is often acceptable to identify these two domains, and up until this
  −
point there has rarely appeared to be a sufficient reason to keep their
  −
concepts separately in mind.  The boolean domain %B% comes with at least
  −
two operations, though often under different names and always included
  −
in a number of others, that are analogous to the field operations of the
  −
binary domain !B!, and operations that are isomorphic to the rest of the
  −
boolean operations in %B% can always be built on the binary basis of !B!.
  −
  −
Of course, as sets of the same cardinality, the domains !B! and %B%
  −
and all of the structures that can be built on them become isomorphic
  −
at a high enough level of abstraction.  Consequently, the main reason
  −
for making this distinction in the immediate context appears to be more
  −
a matter of grammar than an issue of logical and mathematical substance,
  −
namely, so that the signs "%0%" and "%1%" can appear with a semblance of
  −
syntactic legitimacy in linguistic contexts that call for a grammatical
  −
sentence or a sentence surrogate to represent the classes of sentences
  −
that are "always false" and "always true", respectively.  The signs
  −
"0" and "1", customarily read as nouns but not as sentences, fail
  −
to be suitable for this purpose.  Whether these scruples, that are
  −
needed to conform to a particular choice of natural language context,
  −
are ultimately important, is another thing I do not know at this point.
  −
   
The "negation" of x, for x in %B%, written as "(x)"
 
The "negation" of x, for x in %B%, written as "(x)"
 
and read as "not x", is the boolean value (x) in %B%
 
and read as "not x", is the boolean value (x) in %B%
12,080

edits