🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1hsmvoINNjc4@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*----
>Does everyone in this discussion have the same notion of
>property?  Perhaps just to make sure, or to enlighten me, one of
>the participants would be kind enough to tell me what this notion
>is. 
>
>If I were asked whether every meaningful predicate expresses a
>property, my first answer would be "yes, of course." Even an
>expressive or attitudinal predicate such as "yummy" expresses a
>property that some things have, namely, eliciting the attitude or
>expression from the concerned speaker.  (Of course, to say this I
>must either reify the predicate or relativize my logic.  Is this
>Zeleny's point?)
>
>Russell

I follow Quine in saying that properties are simply extensions of
those predicates which happen to have extensions; i.e., sets.  General
predicates which do not necessarily have extensions can always be
quoted, and quoted predicates can be disguised as proper classes.
I admit no intermediate realm of intensions between quoted predicates
and frank sets, although such a realm can be built subsequently using
equivalence classes of syntactical objects.  This means that my notion
of "property" differs quite a lot from Zeleny's, for example.

-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu