[SCL] 'moderately' folded semantics

[Pat Hayes]

>OK, I understand. This also answers a question that I had about the
>distinction between an name such as 'P' and a composite term with empty
>sequence such as '(P)'. For example, the above model would not satisfy the
>text
>(forall (x) (= x a))
>((P) a)
>(not ((Q) a))
>
>However, I believe that I can still define an abstract or some-what
>test-independent vocabulary. I will want all composite terms to be in object
>position. But I need to allow the possibility that some names are in
>relation or function position that are not in object position.

And when they are so limited, they are not required to denote 
anything in the universe. (They may, but are not required to.)

>Does this
>sound OK to you?

If you can do it, yes. But I await details, having tried my damndest 
to do it myself :-)

Pat

PS sorry about delay, just got back from a trip.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes at ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes