Talk:Intended interpretation

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Intended interpretation was copied or moved into Interpretation (logic) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

All models share the same domain of discourse as the intended model

This sentence is false. For a trivial example, take Peano Arithmetic - its intended model is countable, but the upward Lowenheim-Skolem theorem guarantees we have models of every infinite cardinality. In particular, there is a model of Peano Arithmetic whose domain of discourse is uncountable. But, then this can't be the same domain of discourse as the intended model as the intended model is countable. So, that sentence in the article is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.149.136 (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this term unique to Carnap

Comments sought

I have seen this term in several places other than Carnap, sometimes italicized. Furthermore, there is a previous unsourced version (contribution of another editor) of this article if you look at its historical versions. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would surely help to cite the several places other than Carnap--Philogo (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this term used all the time Philogo. Anyone doing research on "interpretation" wouldn't even be asking. At some point I will provide a list for your benefit. More work for me. Thanks. Furthermore, I answered this, and you are still asking. Good luck. The term is usually used rather casually, so as to make it not likely to find it in a table of contents for instance. However, the term is used so frequently as to be conspicuous. Furthermore, I didn't start this article, so I am not the only one (nor the first) to consider this notable. I probably wouldn't have created it myself, however, now that I understand it, its significance is obvious. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article written just for those doing research on "interpretation"? It is the article that wants citations, not me. I am unware of any wiki-policy that says an article need not provide citation if anyone doing resarch on the project would not ask. If there were then I expect an awful lot of articles would be without citations, don't you think?--Philogo (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that. Eventually, I will work on justifying the statements with tags. However, as you know WP depends largely on the consensus of the contributors. I certainly agree that articles should be written for as wide an audience as possible. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article still lacks citations of the several places other than Carnap where this term is used.Philogo (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"An example"?

"Most formal systems have many more models than they were intended to have (the existence of non-standard models is an example)." This sentence seems to need some edit. Isn't an unintended model just the same as a non-standard model? Then why is the latter just an "example" for the former one? Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think when we talk about non-standard models it usually means some particular one that is used for a particular reason, not just calling any gobblygook a non-standard model. However it is a good question. Recently some editors removed an example of an intended interpretation from the theorem article. I was saddened by this, and I had been considering that the example belongs somewhere. I have been meaning to put it in this article for some time, but hadn't made it a priority until now. Greg Bard (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]