Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!usenet
From: jaspert@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jasper Taylor)
Subject: Re: FIRST order?
In-Reply-To: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu's message of 12 Jul 1995 03:15:41 GMT
Message-ID: <JASPERT.95Jul13122125@scott.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: scott
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh
References: <805469118snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <3tumap$aor@saba.info.ucla.edu>
	<805508035snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <3tveot$qb2@saba.info.ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 11:21:25 GMT
Lines: 47
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:31461 comp.ai.philosophy:30050 sci.logic:12283 sci.cognitive:8273


In article <3tveot$qb2@saba.info.ucla.edu> zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> David@longley.demon.co.uk writes:
>> zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu "Michael Zeleny" writes:

> (DL)
[...]
>>>> Numbers as symbols are just that. What they evaluate to or
>>>> designate may be co-extensive. But "25" is not co-extensive with
>>>> "the square root of six hundred and twenty five" any more than
>>>> your *claims* of what I, or Quine say or write, are co- extensive
>>>> with what I or Quine have actually said or written.  Hence the
>>>> 'Principle of Charity'.

> (MZ)
>>> Numbers are not symbols -- only numerals are.  The rest of your
>>> claim is without merit.  Any singular term that evaluates to 25,
>>> ipso facto has 25 as its extension, given a linguistic theory that
>>> does not countenance the existence of concepts.  In
>>> contradistinction from Montague (at least at one point of his
>>> career), Quine has never admitted concepts as possible values of
>>> extensions.  Therefore, by Quine's own lights, "25" is
>>> co-extensive with "the square root of six hundred and twenty
>>> five".  This point is so elementary that your failure to take it
>>> into account casts doubt on the validity of your claim to
>>> understand Quine.

> (DL)
>> Quotation marks here delimit strings!

> That much was obvious.  It is also blindingly obvious that the
> strings in question necessarily and computationally transparently
> denote the same number in all purely referential occurrences.  Go
> back and study your own text.  If you wish to argue that the
> occurrences in question are not purely referential, that would be a
> different story.  But you have offered no such argument to date.

I got a bit confused at the start of the discussion of this example,
because 625 does not have a unique square root; its square roots are
25 and -25.

Being a pedant as usual.
--
Jasper Taylor                        |   _____       |  A politically-correct
Human Communication Research Centre  |  |_   _| |_   |  joke is like an
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, UK.    |    | |_____|  |  environment-friendly
Phone (44) 31 650 4450               |               |  stinkbomb.
