grammar & semantics

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » grammar & semantics

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 01:12 pm
Horace phil
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 03:25 pm
@Horace phil,
Ok, I've been doing a lot of reading, and these are my conclusions for the first two. Can someone tell me if I am "getting" them. As for the other three I am still working on them. Any further explanation is appreciated.

1. Ok. So I need to find a formula that is not a sentence, but contains a part that is a sentence.

A "sentence" is basically a formula that contains no free occurence of a variable.

So this has been offered:

AaFa v Gb

It is not a sentence because B is a free occurence, but it contains part that is a sentence (AaFa) because the variable is bound in both cases. There's no free occurence, and so this works for #1. Is my understanding sound?

2. Now I need to find a formula which contains occurences of a variable that are bound, and at least one that is free. So something might have been offered, but how bout this one? upside downAx[backwardsEy[Hy or Ga] therefore Jxy]

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » grammar & semantics
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 03:07:22