Re: quantifiable pro-bridi

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Mark V:
> > > What do you mean by "intension"?
> >
> > Do you know the word but want to know the sense in which
> > I am using it?
> >
> > Or don't you know it at all? If so, then you're much
> > better of going to a book, such as the second Bible of
> > Lojban, Jim McCawley's "Everything linguists always wanted
> > to know about logic".
>
> mi spuda la .and. di'e
>
> I have read & reread that section of McCawley until (& I mean
> this literally) the book fell to pieces, & I have made a
> strange discovery:  I understand what logicians mean by
> "intension" only late at night - & not at all on most nights.
>
> If you or pc or anyone else can shed some light....

I'm being cagey because I think I would be more likely to shed
darkness than light. pc's explanation would be more kosher, though
his postings often go over my head.

I think of the intension of F as a set of criteria for establishing
whether F(x). The "definition" of F, as it were. McCawley presents
a far more sophisticated account, which I sort of follow until
my CPU crashes. McCawley is a reliable source of info. I am not.

--And.