FOM: Re: Arbitrary Objects

[P.T.M.Rood@ph.vu.nl]

V. Kanovei wrote:
>[begin of citation]
>If we pursue this semantic line of thought then we could try for "let x be an 
>F".
>It seems promising to interpret such a sentence in terms of a "reset 
>operation":
>change the value of the register named "x" to an object of type F. 
>[end of citation]
>
>Can anybody explain why 
>*change the value of the register named "x" to an object of type F*
>is better than 
>*let x satisfy F* ? 

The question seems besides the mark. I proposed the former
to be the semantic interpretation of the latter. And I explained
its virtues in my previous message.

One could as well have asked: why is "x is an arbitrary object
satisfying F" any better than "let x be an F"? This question also
misses the point: the latter is simply taken to mean the former.
But not very properly, I suppose.

R. Rood