Re: Use/Mention

[auerbach@xxxxxxxx (David Auerbach)]

On 01/16/97 at 05:39 PM,
  Robert Holmgren  said (in so many words):

<- The use-mention distinction wormed its way into my brain, too. It
<- passes through that space every once in a while. Changed the way I
<- conceptualize programming, especially XPL (PV vs. GT, 3byte vs 5  byte
<- chars, SX vs SV, really a core concept). Not surprised that it  stuck
<- with others too... Often wonder how linguists approach it.

But I can't remember what I said about use/mention!
 But it certainly is conceptually pertinent to that those items you
mention and helped me to understand them. We philosopher/logicians are
awash in the use/mention distinction. The usual device in informal
contexts is to use single quotes. Thus: 'Boston' names Boston, and '
'Boston' ' names 'Boston' but 9 doesn't designate 9. I also find it useful
to teach my students the distinction between numerals and the numbers they
name, something that 12 years of schooling seems to have neglected to teach
them.  There are some cute elegant versions of the Gödel theorems that use
formalized quotation. One can get the flavor of some of them by considered
this version of the Liar paradox:

'yields a falsehood when appended to its own quotation' yields a falsehood
when appended to its own quotation.

Raymond Smullyan has produced some elegant results along these lines and,
as a by-product, some tricky puzzle books (e.g., *What is the Name of this
Book* and *The Lady or the Tiger*) that end up proving teaching you the
Gödel results.

Ooops. Guess I went off-topic.

--
                     Regards,
                     David

Swill champagne but sip claret
      --Winston Churchill

-----------------------------------------------------------
David Auerbach              auerbach@xxxxxxxx (David Auerbach)
Department of Philosophy & Religion
NCSU
Box 8103
Raleigh, 27695-8103
-----------------------------------------------------------