Merge branch 'working'

[lambda.git] / topics / week1_order.mdwn

diff --git a/topics/week1_order.mdwn b/topics/week1_order.mdwn
index 2a54503..02ed483 100644 (file)
--- a/topics/week1_order.mdwn
+++ b/topics/week1_order.mdwn
@@ -114,8 +114,8 @@ of the order of the premises.  Here is the meaning of one of the
 logical connectives of classical logic, expressed in the form of a
 standard truth table:
 
 logical connectives of classical logic, expressed in the form of a
 standard truth table:
 

-    A   B   A&B
-    -----------
+    A   B  A and B
+    --------------

     T   T    T
     T   F    F
     F   T    F
     T   T    T
     T   F    F
     F   T    F


@@ -144,8 +144,8 @@ to make.
 Given that a partial-function approach to presupposition failure is
 coherent, let's consider one way to extend classical conjunction:
 
 Given that a partial-function approach to presupposition failure is
 coherent, let's consider one way to extend classical conjunction:
 

-       p   q   p&q
-    --------------
+       p   q  p and q
+    -----------------

     a. T   T    T
     b. T   F    F
     c. F   T    F
     a. T   T    T
     b. T   F    F
     c. F   T    F


@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ course the conjunction as a whole will be undefined.
 So far, so good.  Nothing so far undermines the static view.  But now
 consider the two remaining possibilities, one by one, starting with
 line (h).  Here is a concrete sentence fitting the pattern addressed
 So far, so good.  Nothing so far undermines the static view.  But now
 consider the two remaining possibilities, one by one, starting with
 line (h).  Here is a concrete sentence fitting the pattern addressed

-by line (h), `F&#`:
+by line (h), `F and #`:

 
     6. The sun is green and the King of France is bald.
 
 
     6. The sun is green and the King of France is bald.
 


@@ -202,8 +202,8 @@ conjunction as a whole, let the value of the left conjunct control the
 outcome.
 
 To be sure, it would also be coherent to choose a fully symmetric
 outcome.
 
 To be sure, it would also be coherent to choose a fully symmetric

-truth table by replacing line (h) with one that maps `F&#` to `#`, or
-by replacing line (i) with one that maps `#&F` to `F`.  With respect
+truth table by replacing line (h) with one that maps `F and #` to `#`, or
+by replacing line (i) with one that maps `# and F` to `F`.  With respect

 to natural language, of course, which truth table is a better match
 for a given natural language is an empirical question, and not one
 that can be settled by logical argument.  If native speakers behave as
 to natural language, of course, which truth table is a better match
 for a given natural language is an empirical question, and not one
 that can be settled by logical argument.  If native speakers behave as


@@ -242,5 +242,14 @@ the value of the implication as a whole depends on the value of `X`,
 but in the material implication `F --> ?`, the outcome is `T` no
 matter what the value of `X` turns out to be.
 
 but in the material implication `F --> ?`, the outcome is `T` no
 matter what the value of `X` turns out to be.
 

-[to be added: citation details; reasoning about order sensitivity in
-an order-independent way]
+(To be added: citation details; reasoning about order sensitivity in
+an order-independent way.)
+
+The preceding discussion has endeavored to bring out some *similarities*
+between the kind of order-dependence in our three-valued truth-table, and the
+kinds of order-dependence exhibited by "dynamic semantics." But there are also
+of course substantial *differences* between them, and these are also, perhaps
+even more interesting. Over the course of this semester we hope to clarify and
+help you to think more carefully about both the similarities and the
+differences.
+