Talk:Formal interpretation

message: To me, it seems like this article has been severely diminished, if not downright vandalized. Does anyone else agree? Tparameter (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at Talk:Interpretation (logic), especailly section "trying to find a consensus"--Philogo 18:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. You can't just replace the term "model" with "formal interpretation". The current interwiki's to for example :de:Modell don't make any sense any more. Someting has to be done about this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: For this reason I removed the interwiki's and added a POV tag -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. We should seek to clarify matters not confuse them. Can anybody cite a reliable source which defines the term "formal interpretation", and is it in current use?  I am not saying it is not, I am asking. --Philogo 20:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it known here that discourse, model, and interpretation are different concepts? 

message: I cannot help but notice that most of the citations for this article are from Carnap. That SEEMS to inply that the term was used by Carnap and nobody else.--Philogo 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just bad logic on the face of it. You have a basis of one, and yet you have made a conclusion? Do you see that tiny little "1" immediately after the first two words "formal interpretation?" You might want to click on that. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: HOLY MOLY! I just said click on the "1". Carnap doesn't use the term "formal interpretation" because it is already assumed that he is talking about a special type of "interpretation" within formal languages at that point. However. the source referred to by the link is a different source. In that case there is a chapter titled "formal interpretations" dealing with this subject. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article fit for purpose 

message: What exactly is the difference between a "formal interpretation" and an "interpretation" as used in logic? --Philogo 20:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: Due to the high level of abstraction, the article and the discussion are way above my head. Already the first sentence confuses me as there is two times "to the". In my mind I changed the first "to the" into "to" only. Thus I interpret the first sentence as: "A formal interpretation or model is the assignment of meanings to symbols and the assignment of truth-values to the sentences of a formal language." Yet, in daily life I also assign symbols to meanings and sentences to truth-values instead of the other way round. I do this in my mind as well as in communication with others. In doing so I make interpretations and I create models, is it not? So, in my eyes, a model is just as well the assignment of symbols to meanings and of sentences to truth-values, which is the reverse of the definition used in the article. After careful reading, the remainder of texts also stayed beyond my comprehension. R.J.Oosterbaan (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article is very hard to follow. Unfortunately, the desired subject matter of this article (that is, what should the article cover) isn't clear enough for me to clarify the text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Guhh. You can only assign truth values to a formal language if the formal language has, as a part of its alphabet, the logical constants. (This seems to have been at least part of the confusion with Greg Pontiff Bard above -- one normally thinks of the alphabet as a synonym for 'universe', so of course, any letter of the alphabet, such as the logical constants, are by definition a part of the universe, and not outside of it-- at least, that's the standard orthodoxy in undergrad comp sci, e.g. Hopcroft and Ulman).  If the alphabet does not have logical constants in it, then assigning truth values is non-sensical (with of course, some nit-picky exceptions that support the rule). linas (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: But yes, on looking at this article, it seems to want to talk about all of the different things that might be called "interpretation". I guess its trying to be a survey article. Of course, the semantics of survey articles are inherently ambiguous.linas (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: High level of abstraction

message: Could one of these articles explain in one place the differences  among Interpretation (logic), Formal interpretation and Intended interpretation (and/or among formal, mathematical, and descriptive interpretations) and  why they are significant? --Philogo (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: eh?

message: See: Talk:Interpretation (logic)#Merge proposal  User:GregBard and — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal