Re: Seamntic

[David Macy <***>]

Hey John,

    I will try to respond.  I'm probably not the best here to do so, but
I'll try.  Today is my thirty-third birthday and this is my attempt at a
gift for you.  I hope I do it well, fighter.

The semantics of a language is that is which pertains to it's 'actual'
meaning.  The word dog or fighter are nouns, that gives us the wherewithall
to manipulate them grammatically.  But of course they refer to actual things
that are not nouns but in fact very complex entities out there in the
ambience.

Hilbert's program for instance, from what I can gather, was an attempt to
expunge from the language of mathematics all vestige of semantic.  Why?
Probably because intuition can mislead as well as lead.  The word traingle
for instance refers to actual objects and relationships that are intuitive.
In engineering for instance it is commonly known that a triangular structure
can lend rigidity and strength to structures that are devoid of them.
Anyway, apparently this kind of 'brought to the table' aura of meaning was
unacceptable to Hilbert for the purposes of mathematics, thus his attempt at
the complete formalization of mathematics.

There it is my man.  My attempt for you, my chosen.

David


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John M" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:33 PM
Subject: Seamntic


> Judith, Tim, or whoever feels like replying:
>
> the word 'semantic' has been used lately on this list
> well, so 100 times. As far as I read, none referring
> to the meaning as MEANING - I usually look for behind
> it.
> Would somebody have the kindness to explain the
> semantics of 'semantic' as used in the ongoing posts?
> (...antics).
>
> Of course syntax (the structuring of sentences in the
> grammatical sense) is another such usage, but I want
> to ask one qurestion at a time. Let the sin-tax come
> later.
>
>  John Mikes
>