home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.ai.philosophy:7405 sci.philosophy.tech:4983 sci.logic:2640
- Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic
- Path: sparky!uunet!inmos!fulcrum!bham!bhamcs!ard
- From: ard@cs.bham.ac.uk (Antoni Diller)
- Subject: Re: Searle on syntax mirroring semantics
- Message-ID: <C1IIGx.GL0@cs.bham.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@cs.bham.ac.uk
- Nntp-Posting-Host: fattie
- Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK
- References: <1993Jan26.121155.24448@sophia.smith.edu>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:24:32 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1993Jan26.121155.24448@sophia.smith.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
- >Can anyone explain this sentence to me? It is on p.203 of "The
- >Rediscovery of the Mind" by John Searle.
- >
- > The development of proof theory showed that within certain
- > well-known limits the semantic relations between propositions
- > can be entirely mirrored by the syntactic relations between
- > the sentences that express those propositions.
-
- I assume that by `syntax' he means proof-theory and by
- `semantics' he means model-theory; so all he's saying is that
- there are some logics for which you can prove soundness and
- completeness given a suitable proof-theory and model-theory.
- Ie, you can prove:
-
- If Delta |- P, then Delta |= P.
- If Delta |= P, then Delta |- P.
-
- He also probably thinks that a `proposition' is what a sentence
- means, ie, is something non-linguistic; but you can ignore that.
-
- Antoni Diller
-
-