17
edits
User:Magnap/Inquisitive Semantics Proposal: Difference between revisions
User:Magnap/Inquisitive Semantics Proposal (view source)
Revision as of 20:17, 23 September 2024
, 23 SeptemberElucidate proposal aims
m (Restructure a little) |
(Elucidate proposal aims) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
<math>!\exists x. \text{P}\left(x\right)</math> is only the assertion of existence. | <math>!\exists x. \text{P}\left(x\right)</math> is only the assertion of existence. | ||
== | ==Proposal aims (not final)== | ||
'''Note''': this is an ordered list, in order of decreasing priority. | |||
1. Preserve "declarative Toaq" fully. | |||
No non-question Toaq sentence should have its meaning altered. | |||
2. Minimal changes to existing question grammar | |||
Ideally none, depending on my comfort level (and that of the community when I ask!) with new mandatory grammar words vs adding implicit behavior. Ideally I can find default behavior that is simultaneously least informative ''and'' least inquisitive, allowing Toaq users to add it on demand, while never accidentally implying something they didn't mean to nor asking for information they didn't necessarily require. | |||
3. Opening up new possibilities for communication | |||
Propositions like <math>\text{P} \lor \text{Q}</math> and <math>\text{P} \to{} ?\text{Q}</math> ("would <math>\text{Q}</math> necessarily be true if <math>\text{P}</math> were?") are useful-seeming, delightful, and intriguing to me, and I want to preserve as many of them in the semantics of Toaq clauses as possible, albeit only to such an extent that Toaq remains a language learnable, understandable, and usable by humans. | |||
4. Simplicity | |||
A Heyting algebra as opposed to a Boolean one means a lot of new no longer equivalent logic constructions, among these a whole host of possible connectives. Let's aim for the smaller side when picking a subset of those that must nevertheless not only be sufficient for natural communication, but allow expressing every possible statement without too much hassle. NAND is functionally complete on its own for Boolean logic but you don't want to speak a language whose only connective is NAND. | |||
==TODO proposal details== | ==TODO proposal details== | ||