|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| A '''definite description''' is a [[denotation|denoting]] [[phrase]] in the form of "the X" where X is a noun-phrase or a singular common [[noun]]. The definite description is ''proper'' if X applies to a unique individual or object. For example: "[[Yuri Gagarin|the first person in space]]" and "[[Bill Clinton|the 42nd President of the United States of America]]", are proper. The definite descriptions "the person in space" and "the Senator from Ohio" are ''improper'' because the noun phrase X applies to more than one thing, and the definite descriptions "the first man on Mars" and "the Senator from Washington D.C." are ''improper'' because X applies to nothing. Improper descriptions raise some difficult questions about the [[law of excluded middle]], [[denotation]], [[Linguistic modality|modality]], and [[mental content]].
| | Let's look an actual registry scan plus a few of what you will see when you do 1 on your computer. This test was completed on a computer that has been not functioning as it could, operating at slow speed plus having certain issues with freezing up.<br><br>Another answer will be to supply the computer system with a brand-new msvcr71 file. Frequently, once the file has been corrupted or damaged, it will no longer be capable to function like it did before thus it's just all-natural to replace the file. Simply download another msvcr71.dll file within the web. Often, the file might come inside a zip formatting. Extract the files from the zip folder plus area them accordingly inside this location: C:\Windows\System32. Afterward, re-register the file. Click Start and then choose Run. Once the Run window appears, type "cmd". Press Enter plus then kind "regsvr32 -u msvcr71.dll" followed by "regsvr32 msvcr71.dll". Press Enter again and the file ought to be registered accordingly.<br><br>Over time a disk can additionally get fragmented. Fragmentation causes the computer to slow down considering it takes windows much longer to find a files location. Fortunately, the PC has a built inside disk defragmenter. We can run this system by clicking "Start" - "All Programs" - "Accessories" - "System Tools" - "Disk Defragmenter". We will have the way to choose which forces or partition you want to defragment. This action could take you certain time thus it is very advised to do this on a regular basis so because to avoid further fragmentation plus to accelerate your windows XP computer.<br><br>In purchase to remove the programs on a computer, Windows Installer must be in a healthy state. If its installation is corrupted you will receive error 1721 inside Windows 7, Vista and XP during the program removal procedure. Simply re-registering its component files would solve your problem.<br><br>So to fix this, we only have to be able to create all registry files non-corrupted again. This usually dramatically speed up the loading time of the computer plus allows you to a large amount of elements on it again. And fixing these files couldn't be simpler - you merely have to utilize a tool called a [http://bestregistrycleanerfix.com/tune-up-utilities tuneup utilities 2014].<br><br>Active X controls are used over the whole spectrum of computer plus web technologies. These controls are referred to as the building blocks of the internet and as the glue which puts it all together. It is a standard that is used by all developers to create the internet more practical plus interactive. Without these control practices there would basically be no public internet.<br><br>Perfect Optimizer is a wise Registry Product, updates consistently and has many attributes. Despite its cost, you'll find that the update are certainly practical. They offer a lot of support through phone, mail plus forums. We could wish to pay a visit to the free trial to check it out for yourself.<br><br>Often the best method is to read reviews on them plus when numerous users remark about its efficiency, it is actually likely to be function. The right piece is the fact that there are numerous top registry products which work; you really have to take your pick. |
| | |
| ==Russell's analysis==
| |
| {{main|Theory of descriptions}}
| |
| [[France]] is presently a [[republic]], and has no king. [[Bertrand Russell]] pointed out that this raises a puzzle about the truth value of the sentence "The present King of France is bald."
| |
| | |
| The sentence does not seem to be true: if we consider all the bald things, the present King of France isn't among them, since there is [[List of French monarchs|no present King of France]]. But if it is false, then one would expect that the [[negation]] of this statement, that is, "It is not the case that the present King of France is bald," or its [[logical equivalence|logical equivalent]], "The present King of France is not bald," is true. But this sentence doesn't seem to be true either: the present King of France is no more among the things that fail to be bald than among the things that are bald. We therefore seem to have a violation of the [[Law of Excluded Middle]].
| |
| | |
| Is it meaningless, then? One might suppose so (and some philosophers have; see below) since "the present King of France" certainly does [[Failure to refer|fail to refer]]. But on the other hand, the sentence "The present King of France is bald" (as well as its negation) seem perfectly intelligible, suggesting that "the Present King of France" can't be meaningless.
| |
| | |
| Russell proposed to resolve this puzzle via his [[theory of descriptions]]. A definite description like "the present King of France", he suggested, isn't a [[reference|referring]] expression, as we might naively suppose, but rather an "incomplete symbol" that introduces [[quantifier|quantificational]] structure into sentences in which it occurs. The sentence "the present King of France is bald", for example, is analyzed as a conjunction of the following three [[quantifier|quantified]] statements:
| |
| | |
| # there is an x such that x is presently King of France: ∃x[PKoF(x)] (using 'PKoF' for 'presently King of France')
| |
| # for any x and y, if x is presently King of France and y is presently King of France, then x=y (i.e. there is at most one thing which is presently King of France): ∀x∀y[[PKoF(x) & PKoF(y)] → y=x]
| |
| # for every x that is presently King of France, x is bald: ∀x[PKoF(x) → B(x)] (using 'B' for 'bald')
| |
| More briefly put, the claim is that "The present King of France is bald" says that some x is such that x is presently King of France, and that any y is presently King of France only if y = x, and that x is bald:
| |
| ::∃x[PKoF(x) & ∀y[PKoF(y) → y=x] & B(x)]
| |
| | |
| This is ''false'', since it is ''not'' the case that some x is presently King of France.
| |
| | |
| The negation of this sentence, i.e. "The present King of France is not bald", is ambiguous. It could mean one of two things, depending on where we place the negation 'not'. On one reading, it could mean that there is no one who is presently King of France and bald:
| |
| ::~∃x[PKoF(x) & ∀y[PKoF(y) → y=x] & B(x)]
| |
| On this disambiguation, the sentence is ''true'' (since there is indeed no x that is presently King of France).
| |
| | |
| On a second reading, the negation could be construed as attaching directly to 'bald', so that the sentence means that there is presently a King of France, but that this King fails to be bald:
| |
| ::∃x[PKoF(x) & ∀y[PKoF(y) → y=x] & ~B(x)]
| |
| On this disambiguation, the sentence is ''false'' (since there is no x that is presently King of France).
| |
| | |
| Thus, whether "the present King of France is not bald" is true or false depends on how it is interpreted at the level of [[logical form]]: if the [[negation]] is construed as taking wide [[scope]] (as in ~∃x[PKoF(x) & ∀y[PKoF(y) → y=x] & B(x)]), it is true, whereas if the negation is construed as taking narrow [[scope]] (with the [[existential quantifier]] taking wide [[scope]], as in ∃x[PKoF(x) & ∀y[PKoF(y) → y=x] & ~B(x)]), it is false. In neither case does it lack a truth value.
| |
| | |
| So we do ''not'' have a failure of the [[Law of Excluded Middle]]: "the present King of France is bald" (i.e. ∃x[PKoF(x) & ∀y[PKoF(y) → y=x] & B(x)]) is false, because there is no present King of France. The negation of this statement is the one in which 'not' takes wide scope: ~∃x[PKoF(x) & ∀y[PKoF(y) → y=x] & B(x)]. This statement is ''true'' because there does not exist anything which is presently King of France.
| |
| | |
| == Generalized quantifier analysis ==
| |
| | |
| [[Stephen Neale]], among others, has defended Russell's theory, and incorporated it into the theory of [[generalized quantifier]]s. On this view, 'the' is a quantificational determiner like 'some', 'every', 'most' etc. The definite description 'the' has the following denotation (using [[lambda calculus|lambda]] notation):
| |
| | |
| :: λf.λg.[∃x(f(x)=1 & ∀y(f(y)=1 → y=x)) & g(x)=1].
| |
| | |
| (That is, the definite article 'the' denotes a function which takes a pair of [[property|properties]] f and g to truth just in case there exists something that has the property f, only one thing has the property f, and that thing also has the property g.) Given the denotation of the [[Predicate (mathematical logic)|predicates]] 'present King of France' (again PKoF for short) and 'bald (B for short)'
| |
| | |
| :: λx.[PKoF(x)]
| |
| :: λx.[B(x)] | |
| | |
| we then get the Russellian truth conditions via two steps of [[function application]]: 'The present King of France is bald' is true just in case ∃x[PKoF(x) & ∀y[PKoF(y) → y=x] & B(x)]. On this view, definite descriptions like 'the present King of France' do have a denotation (specifically, definite descriptions denote a function from properties to truth values—they are in that sense not [[syncategorematic]], or "incomplete symbols"); but the view retains the essentials of the Russellian analysis, yielding exactly the truth conditions Russell argued for.
| |
| | |
| ==Fregean analysis==
| |
| | |
| The Fregean analysis of definite descriptions, implicit in the work of [[Frege]] and later defended by [[Strawson]] (1950) among others, represents the primary alternative to the Russellian theory. On the Fregean analysis, definite descriptions are construed as [[referring expression]]s rather than [[quantifier|quantificational expressions]]. Existence and uniqueness are understood as a [[presupposition]] of a sentence containing a definite description, rather than part of the content asserted by such a sentence. The sentence 'The present King of France is bald', for example, isn't used to claim that there exists a unique present King of France who is bald; instead, that there is a unique present King of France is part of what this sentence ''presupposes'', and what it ''says'' is that this individual is bald. If the presupposition fails, the definite description [[empty name|fails to refer]], and the sentence as a whole fails to express a [[proposition]].
| |
| | |
| The Fregean view is thus committed to the kind of [[truth value]] gaps (and failures of the [[Law of Excluded Middle]]) that the Russellian analysis is designed to avoid. Since there is presently no King of France, the sentence 'The present King of France is bald' fails to express a proposition, and therefore fails to have a truth value, as does its [[negation]], 'The present King of France is not bald'. The Fregean will account for the fact that these sentences are nevertheless ''meaningful'' by relying on speakers' knowledge of the conditions under which either of these sentences ''could'' be used to express a true proposition. The Fregean can also hold on to a restricted version of the Law of Excluded Middle: for any sentence whose presuppositions are met (and thus expresses a proposition), either that sentence or its negation is true.
| |
| | |
| On the Fregean view, the definite article 'the' has the following denotation (using [[lambda calculus|lambda]] notation):
| |
| | |
| :: λf: ∃x(f(x)=1 & ∀y(f(y)=1 → y=x)).[the unique y such that f(y)=1]
| |
| | |
| (That is, 'the' denotes a function which takes a property f and yields the unique object y that has property f, if there is such a y, and is undefined otherwise.) The presuppositional character of the existence and uniqueness conditions is here reflected in the fact that the definite article denotes a [[partial function]] on the set of properties: it is only defined for those properties f which are true of exactly one object. It is thus undefined on the denotation of the predicate 'presently King of France', since the property of presently being King of France is true of no object; it is similarly undefined on the denotation of the predicate 'Senator of the US', since the property of being a US Senator is true of more than one object.
| |
| | |
| ==Mathematical logic ==
| |
| {{main|Uniqueness quantification}}
| |
| In much [[formal logic|formal]] work, authors use a definite description operator symbolized using <math>\scriptstyle\iota x</math>. The operator is usually defined so as to reflect a Russellian analysis of descriptions (though other authors, especially in linguistics, use the <math>\scriptstyle \iota</math> operator with a Fregean semantics). Thus
| |
| :<math>\iota x(\phi x)</math>,
| |
| means "the unique <math>\scriptstyle x</math> such that <math>\scriptstyle\phi x</math>", and
| |
| :<math>\psi(\iota x(\phi x))</math>
| |
| is stipulated to be equivalent to "There is exactly one <math>\scriptstyle\phi</math> and it has the property <math>\scriptstyle\psi</math>": | |
| :<math>\exists x\forall y (\phi(y) \iff y=x \and \psi(y))</math>
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| * [[Philosophy of language]]
| |
| * [[Analytic philosophy]]
| |
| *[[Bertrand Russell]]
| |
| *[[John Searle]]
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| * Donnellan, Keith, "Reference and Definite Descriptions," in ''[[The Philosophical Review|Philosophical Review]]'' 75 (1966): 281-304.
| |
| * Neale, Stephen, ''Descriptions'', [[MIT Press]], 1990.
| |
| * Ostertag, Gary (ed.). (1998) ''Definite Descriptions: A Reader'' Bradford, MIT Press. (Includes Donnellan (1966), Chapter 3 of Neale (1990), Russell (1905), and Strawson (1950).)
| |
| * Reimer, Marga and Bezuidenhout, Anne (eds.) (2004), ''Descriptions and Beyond'', Clarendon Press, Oxford
| |
| * Russell, Bertrand, "On Denoting," in ''[[Mind (journal)|Mind]]'' 14 (1905): 479-493. [http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/anglica/Chronology/20thC/Russell/rus_deno.html Online text]
| |
| * Strawson, P. F., "On Referring," in ''Mind'' 59 (1950): 320-344.
| |
| | |
| ==External links==
| |
| *{{sep entry|descriptions}}
| |
| | |
| {{analytic philosophy}}
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Syntactic entities]]
| |
| [[Category:Bertrand Russell]]
| |
Let's look an actual registry scan plus a few of what you will see when you do 1 on your computer. This test was completed on a computer that has been not functioning as it could, operating at slow speed plus having certain issues with freezing up.
Another answer will be to supply the computer system with a brand-new msvcr71 file. Frequently, once the file has been corrupted or damaged, it will no longer be capable to function like it did before thus it's just all-natural to replace the file. Simply download another msvcr71.dll file within the web. Often, the file might come inside a zip formatting. Extract the files from the zip folder plus area them accordingly inside this location: C:\Windows\System32. Afterward, re-register the file. Click Start and then choose Run. Once the Run window appears, type "cmd". Press Enter plus then kind "regsvr32 -u msvcr71.dll" followed by "regsvr32 msvcr71.dll". Press Enter again and the file ought to be registered accordingly.
Over time a disk can additionally get fragmented. Fragmentation causes the computer to slow down considering it takes windows much longer to find a files location. Fortunately, the PC has a built inside disk defragmenter. We can run this system by clicking "Start" - "All Programs" - "Accessories" - "System Tools" - "Disk Defragmenter". We will have the way to choose which forces or partition you want to defragment. This action could take you certain time thus it is very advised to do this on a regular basis so because to avoid further fragmentation plus to accelerate your windows XP computer.
In purchase to remove the programs on a computer, Windows Installer must be in a healthy state. If its installation is corrupted you will receive error 1721 inside Windows 7, Vista and XP during the program removal procedure. Simply re-registering its component files would solve your problem.
So to fix this, we only have to be able to create all registry files non-corrupted again. This usually dramatically speed up the loading time of the computer plus allows you to a large amount of elements on it again. And fixing these files couldn't be simpler - you merely have to utilize a tool called a tuneup utilities 2014.
Active X controls are used over the whole spectrum of computer plus web technologies. These controls are referred to as the building blocks of the internet and as the glue which puts it all together. It is a standard that is used by all developers to create the internet more practical plus interactive. Without these control practices there would basically be no public internet.
Perfect Optimizer is a wise Registry Product, updates consistently and has many attributes. Despite its cost, you'll find that the update are certainly practical. They offer a lot of support through phone, mail plus forums. We could wish to pay a visit to the free trial to check it out for yourself.
Often the best method is to read reviews on them plus when numerous users remark about its efficiency, it is actually likely to be function. The right piece is the fact that there are numerous top registry products which work; you really have to take your pick.