FOM: Re: Arbitrary Objects
P.T.M.Rood at ph.vu.nl
Thu Jan 31 03:58:12 EST 2002
V. Kanovei wrote:
>[begin of citation]
>If we pursue this semantic line of thought then we could try for "let x be an
>It seems promising to interpret such a sentence in terms of a "reset
>change the value of the register named "x" to an object of type F.
>[end of citation]
>Can anybody explain why
>*change the value of the register named "x" to an object of type F*
>is better than
>*let x satisfy F* ?
The question seems besides the mark. I proposed the former
to be the semantic interpretation of the latter. And I explained
its virtues in my previous message.
One could as well have asked: why is "x is an arbitrary object
satisfying F" any better than "let x be an F"? This question also
misses the point: the latter is simply taken to mean the former.
But not very properly, I suppose.
More information about the FOM