tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post3399067705533635315..comments2021-06-19T18:51:04.369+01:00Comments on M-Phi: Applicability, mixed & pure, and modalityJeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-17757010094042035192021-04-04T12:55:16.872+01:002021-04-04T12:55:16.872+01:00Best zoho api and 3rd part integration services at...Best zoho api and 3rd part integration services at al fahad IT consulting.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.al-fahad.biz/zoho-api-integrations/" rel="nofollow">Zoho API / 3rd Part Integrations</a><br />AL FAHAD IT CONSULTINGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08049146818382428305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-78951927194552327152011-04-26T15:56:45.838+01:002011-04-26T15:56:45.838+01:00Yes, that's definitely an option, and I should...Yes, that's definitely an option, and I should have included it - as it's the sort of line taken to show that languages have their syntactic and semantic properties essentially (which is why the T-sentences are necessarily true).<br />I'm sympathetic to that view, and it keeps extensionality, as you say. That would mean "set-like" mixed mathematical objects don't really change after all; rather, descriptive terms denoting them are non-rigid.<br /><br />Consider other mixed mathematical objects, though, like the magnetic field B: a function from spacetime points to vectors. In different possible worlds, it has a different extensions. One could say that the term "the magnetic field" is non-rigid. I am not sure though.Jeffrey Ketlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-88259260343630033792011-04-26T07:56:58.298+01:002011-04-26T07:56:58.298+01:00"The set of all people who have been US presi..."The set of all people who have been US presidents now has 44 members, but (unless something weird happens) on Jan 20th, 2013, it will have either 44 or 45 members. And the set of all US presidents now in the actual world has 44 members, but it could have been different"<br /><br />There is another option: it might be that the set of US presidents---that is, that particular object---has the members that it has of necessity, and instead, the term 'the set of US presidents' is non-rigid, just as 'the US president' is.<br /><br />This other option has the advantage that it doesn't go against some kind of modalised version of extensionality, which might be thought to be an essential feature of the set concept. The set which we will refer to by 'the set of US presidents' in 2017 will not be the same as the one we refer to now, in virtue of it having at least one additional element.Jonathan Paynenoreply@blogger.com