From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Wed Feb 26 12:54:34 EST 1992
Article 4013 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Semantic and Syntax
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.185838.6904@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Feb24.174823.15344@oracorp.com> <kimhock.82@csar.uucp>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 18:58:38 GMT

In article <kimhock.82@csar.uucp> kimhock@csar.uucp (Ng Kim Hock) writes:
>I have been trying to follow the arguments and exchanges regarding syntax 
>and semantics. I was just trying to draw a parallel with some Mathematics 
>and would like to seek your opinion on the problem.
>
>Supposing I write a=b+c
>
>	In Mathematics, this could be viewed from the point of view of syntax
>	and syntactic rules
>
>	i.e. I know that the symbol + is such that a+b = b+a
>	     and I know that there is a 0 such that a+0 = 0+a = a etc.
>
>Viewed from this angle, it would appear that a purely syntactic approach 
>could solve certain problems and in fact when a person is asked to prove 
>certain properties. I am wondering whether if a person who found the 
>solution is deem to have understood the problem

This doesn't specify the semantic content of +. The two formulae you
give are equally true any symmetrical relation (assuming = is given
some definition approximating equality or strict biconditional). For
instance, suppose I decree that + means "is a sibling of". Then, under
your rules, if a is a sibling of b then b is a sibling of a. Moreover,
if a is a sibling of 0 then 0 is a sibling of a (you didn't give 0
any semantic content either). Thus your content is underdetermined
because clearly "plus" and "is a sibling of" are not semantically equivalent.
If reducing semantics to syntax were this easy, there'd be no argument.
It isn't. There is.
>

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


