Practical advice for working with OCaml and/or Haskell (all will be posted soon);
[[Homework|exercises/assignment5]]
-> *Reading for next meeting*: [[this short footnote from Kaplan|readings/kaplan-plexy.pdf]]; and, separately, [[this paper|readings/rieppel-beingsthg.pdf]] from Michael Rieppel, a recent Berkeley Philosophy PhD, on Frege's "concept horse" problem (on which, [here is an entry point to some scholarly discussion](http://philpapers.org/rec/PROWIF)). The Rieppel paper is connected to a discussion Jim participated in with Jeff King a few years ago, about the difference between clausal complements and expressions like "the proposition that P" or "the fact that P". We're likely to discuss King's views on this, which were first set out in his paper [Designating propositions](http://philpapers.org/rec/KINDP) and then elaborated in his book *The Nature and Structure of Content*. I will post some selections from the book later, as optional background reading. But the only things from this set that we will expect you all to read are the Kaplan footnote and the Rieppel paper.
+> *There is some assigned reading for our next meeting.* This comes in two batches. The first batch consists of [[this footnote|readings/kaplan-plexy.pdf]] from Kaplan's *Demonstratives*. Also recommended, but not mandatory, is [[this selection|readings/king-on-schiffer.pdf]] from Chapter 4 of Jeff King's 2007 book *The Nature and Structure of Content*. The second batch consists of [[this paper|readings/rieppel-beingsthg.pdf]] from Michael Rieppel, a recent Berkeley Philosophy PhD, on Frege's "concept horse" problem. Also recommended, but not mandatory, is [[this selection|readings/king-on-logicism.pdf]] from Chapter 5 of King's book. (It reviews and elaborates his paper "[Designating propositions](http://philpapers.org/rec/KINDP)".)
+
+> If you're interested in the scholarly background on Frege's "concept horse" problem, here is [an entry point](http://philpapers.org/rec/PROWIF).
> If you're reading along in Hankin, you can look at Chapter 7.
> If you're reading along in the Pierce book, the chapters most relevant to this week's discussion are 22 and 23; though for context we also recommend at least Chapters 8, 9, 11, 20, and 29. We don't expect most of you to follow these recommendations now, or even to be comfortable enough yet with the material to be able to. We're providing the pointers as references that some might conceivably pursue now, and others later.
+(**Week 6**) Thursday March 5
+
+> We will be discussing the readings posted above.
+
+> Topics: [[Kaplan on Plexy|topics/week6_plexy]]; King on that-clauses and "the proposition that P"; Rieppel on Frege and the concept HORSE
+
+(**Week 7**) Thursday March 12
+
+> Topics: [[Combinatory evaluator|topics/week7_combinatory_evaluator]]; Interpreter for Lambda terms; [[Introducing Monads|topics/week7_introducing_monads]] (updated Fri 20 Mar); [[Homework|exercises/assignment7]]
+
+<!--
+(**Week 8**) Thursday March 26
+-->
<!--
We've added a [[Monad Library]] for OCaml.
developed in computer science and that linguists and philosophers ought to
know, or may already be unknowingly trying to reinvent.
-Philosphers and linguists tend to reuse the same familiar tools in
+Philosophers and linguists tend to reuse the same familiar tools in
ever more (sometime spectacularly) creative ways. But when your only
hammer is classical logic, every problem looks like modus ponens. In
contrast, computer scientists have invested considerable ingenuity in