From 7bccfae68c81ec90994159f1dbe43f21e48a93c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chris Barker Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 22:40:29 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] move hint --- intensionality_monad.mdwn | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/intensionality_monad.mdwn b/intensionality_monad.mdwn index 83824a42..5b0ec3a2 100644 --- a/intensionality_monad.mdwn +++ b/intensionality_monad.mdwn @@ -24,11 +24,11 @@ First, the familiar linguistic problem: Ann believes [Bill left]. Ann believes [Cam left]. -We want an analysis on which all four of these sentences can be true -simultaneously. If sentences denoted simple truth values or booleans, -we have a problem: if the sentences *Bill left* and *Cam left* are -both true, they denote the same object, and Ann's beliefs can't -distinguish between them. +We want an analysis on which the first three sentences can be true at +the same time that the last sentence is false. If sentences denoted +simple truth values or booleans, we have a problem: if the sentences +*Bill left* and *Cam left* are both true, they denote the same object, +and Ann's beliefs can't distinguish between them. The traditional solution to the problem sketched above is to allow sentences to denote a function from worlds to truth values, what @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ matter which world is used as an argument. This is a typical kind of thing for a monad unit to do. Then combining a prediction like *left* which is extensional in its -subject argument with a monadic subject like `unit ann` is simply bind +subject argument with an intensional subject like `unit ann` is simply bind in action: bind (unit ann) left 1;; (* true: Ann left in world 1 *) -- 2.11.0