Le 13-janv.-06, à 18:51, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 13-janv.-06, à 04:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
I sympathise with the conclusions of the young Danny, but there is a
philosophical non sequitur here. The fact that I would like
something to be true, or not to be
Bruno, list,
Thank your for clarifying with regard to semantics and truth-preservation,
enough for me to do a little homework.
I searched around the Internet and see that you're quite right, I've wandered
into semantic-vs.-syntactic issues with my talk of truth preservation in
inference.
How
Sorry, had to make a few corrections.
1. [correction] ...my definitions don't at all completely capture...
[instead of vague] ...such definitions don't at all completely capture...
2. [correction] ...'strict' aka 'non-reversible' deduction...
[instead of mistake] ...'strict' aka
3 matches
Mail list logo
