Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NialScorva · 08-01-2002, 11:40 PM

What seperates a formal language from an natural language? Formal languages seem to rely on logical atomism and referential transparency, are there any other attributes that distinguish the two?

Ierrellus · 08-02-2002, 06:28 AM

Nial,

Please explain your four key terms for ignorami such as I.

Ierrellus
PAX

Clutch · 08-02-2002, 10:24 AM

Nial,

The standard understanding of "natural language" is just of a language that is, was, or could actually be acquired as a first language by humans. So (respectively) English, Latin, and Esperanto would count. Robinson Arithmetic wouldn't.

A formal language is not a technical notion; it applies more loosely to regimented languages with some general, but not essential, features: they are literally formal, in that they can function in the absence of interpretations; they are artificial; their purpose is to enhance clarity and eliminate the ambiguities or complications of natural languages... and so forth.

So there's nothing that says that a formal language can't include referentially opaque operators. Some do, when their purpose is to model natural language more closely. But most don't, for the simple reason that it's simpler to reason with that complication removed. Same for vague predicates.

I dunno if that tells you anything you don't already know!

phaedrus · 08-03-2002, 12:16 AM

extensional opactiy?

<a href="http://sowi.iwp.uni-linz.ac.at/Sorites/Natural_Kinds.html" target="_blank">Natural Kinds and Projectible Predicates</a>

<a href="http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/Projects/NuPrl/cs611/fall94notes/cn2/subsection3_1_3.html" target="_blank">Artificial Language vs. Natural Language</a>

08-01-2002, 11:40 PM	#1
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	Formal logic, logical atomism, and referential transparency What seperates a formal language from an natural language? Formal languages seem to rely on logical atomism and referential transparency, are there any other attributes that distinguish the two?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-02-2002, 06:28 AM	#2
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	Nial, Please explain your four key terms for ignorami such as I. Ierrellus PAX

08-02-2002, 10:24 AM	#3
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Nial, The standard understanding of "natural language" is just of a language that is, was, or could actually be acquired as a first language by humans. So (respectively) English, Latin, and Esperanto would count. Robinson Arithmetic wouldn't. A formal language is not a technical notion; it applies more loosely to regimented languages with some general, but not essential, features: they are literally formal, in that they can function in the absence of interpretations; they are artificial; their purpose is to enhance clarity and eliminate the ambiguities or complications of natural languages... and so forth. So there's nothing that says that a formal language can't include referentially opaque operators. Some do, when their purpose is to model natural language more closely. But most don't, for the simple reason that it's simpler to reason with that complication removed. Same for vague predicates. I dunno if that tells you anything you don't already know!

08-03-2002, 12:16 AM	#4
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	extensional opactiy? <a href="http://sowi.iwp.uni-linz.ac.at/Sorites/Natural_Kinds.html" target="_blank">Natural Kinds and Projectible Predicates</a> <a href="http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/Projects/NuPrl/cs611/fall94notes/cn2/subsection3_1_3.html" target="_blank">Artificial Language vs. Natural Language</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.