Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 26, 2020 16:58:34 GMT
D1. A researcher knows the sense of a simple sign iff he knows the meaning of this signs; and he knows the sense of a complex sign iff he knows the meaning of all the signs in the complex sign.
A1. If a researcher knows the sense of a sign he knows its meaning too. For instance, if the sense of the word "a square that is round" is known we know its meaning: it means a round square. There are no other ways to get the meaning of this phrase, but by this trick, because as by empirical so by analytical it's impossible to do.
Equality: S1===S2
A2. If S1 and S2 are simple, then (S1==S2)-->(S1===S2)
A3. (S1===S2)-->(S===S[S1/S2])
D2. Signs are equal by the sense just because of A2 and A3.
A4. (S1===S2)*(S2===S3)-->(S1===S3)
A5. (S1===S2)-->(S1==S2)
According to D2 the question about are these two signs equal by the sense leads to the question about equality and differences by the sense all the signs which are in the complex signs.
T1. ~((S1==S2)-->(S1===S2))
A5 and T1 claim that equal by the sense two signs are equal by their meaning, but it might be wrong in the opposite way.
It's important to know that how a sign is taken as a plain one, or a complex one. For to illustrate the problems which arise with the meaning and the sense of some signs, usually talk about paradoxes like "Morning Star" and "Evening Star". If these signs are concerned as the complex ones, which are composed with the plain signs: "Evening", "Morning", and "Star", then they differ by the sense. The question of the relations of their meaning is still opened. If the signs are equal by the meaning (they refer to the one and the same subject), then we have an example of of signs which are equal by the meaning, but different by the sense. Yet if these two signs are taken intensionally just as names one and the same subject, then they are taken as plain signs which are equal by the meaning. But as the plain signs they are equal by the sense.
We allow, when a researcher doesn't analysis a complex sign, he must take it as a plain sign. In all the cases it's definitely known how one or another sign is taken, i.e. a sign can't be taken as a simple and a complex sign simultaneously.
(A. A. Ginovaef "Logic of Science", 1971)
A1. If a researcher knows the sense of a sign he knows its meaning too. For instance, if the sense of the word "a square that is round" is known we know its meaning: it means a round square. There are no other ways to get the meaning of this phrase, but by this trick, because as by empirical so by analytical it's impossible to do.
Equality: S1===S2
A2. If S1 and S2 are simple, then (S1==S2)-->(S1===S2)
A3. (S1===S2)-->(S===S[S1/S2])
D2. Signs are equal by the sense just because of A2 and A3.
A4. (S1===S2)*(S2===S3)-->(S1===S3)
A5. (S1===S2)-->(S1==S2)
According to D2 the question about are these two signs equal by the sense leads to the question about equality and differences by the sense all the signs which are in the complex signs.
T1. ~((S1==S2)-->(S1===S2))
A5 and T1 claim that equal by the sense two signs are equal by their meaning, but it might be wrong in the opposite way.
It's important to know that how a sign is taken as a plain one, or a complex one. For to illustrate the problems which arise with the meaning and the sense of some signs, usually talk about paradoxes like "Morning Star" and "Evening Star". If these signs are concerned as the complex ones, which are composed with the plain signs: "Evening", "Morning", and "Star", then they differ by the sense. The question of the relations of their meaning is still opened. If the signs are equal by the meaning (they refer to the one and the same subject), then we have an example of of signs which are equal by the meaning, but different by the sense. Yet if these two signs are taken intensionally just as names one and the same subject, then they are taken as plain signs which are equal by the meaning. But as the plain signs they are equal by the sense.
We allow, when a researcher doesn't analysis a complex sign, he must take it as a plain sign. In all the cases it's definitely known how one or another sign is taken, i.e. a sign can't be taken as a simple and a complex sign simultaneously.
(A. A. Ginovaef "Logic of Science", 1971)