* How shall we handle \[[∃x]]? As we said, GS&V really tell us how to interpret \[[∃xPx]], but what they say about this breaks naturally into two pieces, such that we can represent the update of our starting set `u` with \[[∃xPx]] as:
* How shall we handle \[[∃x]]? As we said, GS&V really tell us how to interpret \[[∃xPx]], but what they say about this breaks naturally into two pieces, such that we can represent the update of our starting set `u` with \[[∃xPx]] as:
(* we pass through the same truth_value that we started with *)
in let r' = fun var ->
if var = var_to_bind then new_index else r var
(* we pass through the same truth_value that we started with *)
- in (truth_value, r', h')
+ in (truth_value, r', h');;
What's going on in this representation of `u` updated with \[[∃x]]? For each `bool dpm` in `u`, we collect `dpm`s that are the result of passing through their `bool`, but extending their input `(r, h)` by allocating a new peg for entity `d`, for each `d` in our whole domain of entities, and binding the variable `x` to the index of that peg.
What's going on in this representation of `u` updated with \[[∃x]]? For each `bool dpm` in `u`, we collect `dpm`s that are the result of passing through their `bool`, but extending their input `(r, h)` by allocating a new peg for entity `d`, for each `d` in our whole domain of entities, and binding the variable `x` to the index of that peg.
- A later step can then filter out all the `dpm`s according to which the entity `d` we did that with doesn't have property P.
+ A later step can then filter out all the `dpm`s where the entity `d` we did that with doesn't have property P.
So if we just call the function `extend_one` defined above \[[∃x]], then `u` updated with \[[∃x]] updated with \[[Px]] is just:
So if we just call the function `extend_one` defined above \[[∃x]], then `u` updated with \[[∃x]] updated with \[[Px]] is just:
Now, how would we implement quantifiers in this setting? I'll assume we have a function `exists` of type `(entity -> bool) -> bool`. That is, it accepts a predicate as argument and returns `true` if any element in the domain satisfies that predicate. We could implement the reader-monad version of that like this:
Now, how would we implement quantifiers in this setting? I'll assume we have a function `exists` of type `(entity -> bool) -> bool`. That is, it accepts a predicate as argument and returns `true` if any element in the domain satisfies that predicate. We could implement the reader-monad version of that like this:
- fun (lifted_predicate : entity reader -> bool reader) ->
- fun r -> exists (fun (obj : entity) -> lifted_predicate (unit_reader obj) r)
+ fun (lifted_predicate : lifted_unary) ->
+ fun r -> exists (fun (obj : entity) ->
+ lifted_predicate (unit_reader obj) r)
That would be the meaning of \[[∃]], which we'd use like this:
That would be the meaning of \[[∃]], which we'd use like this:
Contrast the way we use \[[∃x]] in GS&V's system. Here we don't have a function that takes \[[Qx]] as an argument. Instead we have a operation that gets bound in a discourse chain:
</code></pre>
Contrast the way we use \[[∃x]] in GS&V's system. Here we don't have a function that takes \[[Qx]] as an argument. Instead we have a operation that gets bound in a discourse chain:
- The crucial difference in GS&V's system is that the distinctive effect of the \[[∃x]]---to allocate new pegs in the store and associate variable `x` with the objects stored there---doesn't last only while interpreting clauses supplied as arguments to \[[∃x]]. Instead, it persists through the discourse, possibly affecting the interpretation of claims outside the logical scope of the quantifier. This is how we're able to interpret claims like:
+ The crucial difference in GS&V's system is that the distinctive effect of the \[[∃x]]---to allocate new pegs in the store and associate variable `x` with the objects stored there---doesn't last only while interpreting clauses supplied as arguments to \[[∃x]]. Instead, it persists through the discourse, possibly affecting the interpretation of claims outside the logical scope of the quantifier. This is how we'll able to interpret claims like:
+
+ > If ∃x (man x and ∃y y is wife of x) then (x kisses y).
- > If ∃y (farmer y and ∃x y owns x) then (y beats x).
+* Can you figure out how to handle \[[not φ]] and the other connectives? If not, here are some [more hints](/hints/assignment_7_hint_6). But try to get as far as you can on your own.
-* Can you figure out how to handle \[[not φ]] on your own? If not, here are some [more hints](/hints/assignment_7_hint_6). But try to get as far as you can on your own.