In a message dated 10/5/2001 7:42:30 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
> I'd go so far as to say I think it is just flat hopelessly wrong. As As I should have remembered when the whole issue came up, there is no solution. That is why there is intensional logic in the first place -- we want to muck about in there but we can't do it extensionally. <Taking questions as a primitive notion is progress of a sort. I'll leave discussion of that to another message.> It turns out that insofar as this works at all (not very far, alas, as I have played with it) it works because of a small but significant intensional spot in the midst of the definition of "answer." so, far from being primitive, "answer" (and so "question) are in need of further analysis at this point. But, happily, can be used for the question part without creating any problems within that range. (The fact that they work for {djuno} and {krici} and the like should be a warning about this intensional component). |