[email@example.com: definitions and analytic truth]firstname.lastname@example.org (David McAllester)
From: email@example.com (David McAllester)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 22:51:07 EST
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: [firstname.lastname@example.org: definitions and analytic truth]
I'm wondering if JMc and DAM think that with the fix JMc proposes, the
definition facility as outlined by RF now conforms with their precepts
-- or do the constructs still allow us to "sneak in new assertions"?
In particular, if we use defprimrelation to define a type hierachy
(which the syntax certainly permits) are we "sneaking in new assertions"?
I am convinced that any one of the proposed changes to the way constants are
defined fixes the problem (definitions become conservative extensions).