= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Transhumanism and the denotation-connotation gap - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (29)
According to Wikipedia. But I've never heard "connotation" used that way. "Intension" as set of rules, if such a set can be found; but most linguists would say that no such set of rules can be found for most categories that could actually define their intension. IMHO, in practice, the thing described by a set of rules is still more like the extension than the intension. That's why I didn't call it the intension.
It's the usual way of explaining the distinction in intro to logic classes. I'm quite sure that Hurley uses connotation in that sense. Unsurprisingly, Enderton and Tarski do not touch upon the subject since their books are more mathematical/formal.