From 7d6f1a776e5772d366a09be43c5314a44a7c36f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jim Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 07:25:57 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] formatting re Montague --- topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn b/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn index f1d59254..c8caa0d3 100644 --- a/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn +++ b/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn @@ -378,11 +378,11 @@ In fact you've already seen this several times this semester---recall how in our This inversion of control should also remind you of Montague's treatment of determiner phrases in ["The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English"](http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631215417%5CPortner.pdf) (PTQ). -A naive semantics for atomic sentences will say the subject term is of type `e`, and the predicate of type `e -> t`, and that the subject provides an argument to the function expressed by the predicate. +> A naive semantics for atomic sentences will say the subject term is of type `e`, and the predicate of type `e -> t`, and that the subject provides an argument to the function expressed by the predicate. -Monatague proposed we instead take the subject term to be of type `(e -> t) -> t`, and that now it'd be the predicate (still of type `e -> t`) that provides an argument to the function expressed by the subject. +> Monatague proposed we instead take the subject term to be of type `(e -> t) -> t`, and that now it'd be the predicate (still of type `e -> t`) that provides an argument to the function expressed by the subject. -If all the subject did then was supply an `e` to the `e -> t` it receives as an argument, we wouldn't have gained anything we weren't already able to do. But of course, there are other things the subject can do with the `e -> t` it receives as an argument. For instance, it can check whether anything in the domain satisfies that `e -> t`; or whether most things do; and so on. +> If all the subject did then was supply an `e` to the `e -> t` it receives as an argument, we wouldn't have gained anything we weren't already able to do. But of course, there are other things the subject can do with the `e -> t` it receives as an argument. For instance, it can check whether anything in the domain satisfies that `e -> t`; or whether most things do; and so on. This inversion of who is the argument and who is the function receiving the argument is paradigmatic of working with continuations. -- 2.11.0