# logical symbols

**Francois-Rene Rideau**
fare@tunes.org

*Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:12:06 +0100*

>* I was wondering if anybody can give me a
*>* sensible explanation of the reason for basing most logics on several
*>* certain operators.
*Simplicity? See for instance how these operators arise simply
in a category-theory reconstruction of intuitionnistic logic/lambda-calculus.
For a more thorough discussion of the notion of simplicity/complexity,
see "An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications"
by Li & Vitanyi.
>* It seems that this operator-class constitutes some sort of dirty
*>* reflectivity with a limited (unary) scope.
*Unarity is usually chosen because it leads
to a simple finitary presentation of the logic,
which allows for easier reflection.
Now, there are *lots* of variants of various calculi
with varying arity of operators.
For instance, people involved in Pi-calculi usually prefer polyadic variants.
>* "For all variables x, A(...x...) is true" is equivalent to "There does
*>* not exist a variable x such that A(...x...) is not true"
*This only holds in classical logic, but not in most intuitionnistic logic.
>* these operators are declarations about symbols, not intensions.
*As soon as you've got internal notions (be it in a meta-language),
you're dealing with extensions. Intension is an ever fleeing concept.
Whenever you closely look at intensions, they become extensions.
It only becomes back an intension when you don't look at it.
## Faré | VN: Ð£ng-Vû Bân | Join the TUNES project! http://www.tunes.org/ ##
## FR: François-René Rideau | TUNES is a Useful, Not Expedient System ##
## Reflection&Cybernethics | Project for a Free Reflective Computing System ##
Mathematicians are like Frenchmen: whatever you say to them they
translate into their own language, and forthwith it is something
entirely different.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe