∀v((u1 6= v ∧ . . . ∧ (un 6= v) → V (v)(i) = V (v)(j)) ,
a term which expresses that states i and j differ at most in u1 ,. . . ,un; i[ ]j
will stand for the formula ∀v(V (v)(i) = V (v)(j)). We impose the following
axioms.
AX1 ∀i∀v∀x ∃j (i [v]j ∧ V(v)(j) = x)
AX2 ∀i∀j (i [ ]j → i = j)
AX3 u 6= u0, for each two different discourse referents (con-
stants of type π) u and u0 .
AX1 requires that for each state, each pigeon-hole and each object, there
must be a second state that is just like the first one, except that the given
object is an occupant of the given pigeon-hole. AX2 says that two states
cannot be different if they agree in all pigeon-holes. AX3 makes sure that
different discourse referents refer to different pigeon-holes, so that an update
on one discourse referent will not result in a change in some other discourse
referent’s value.
Type logic enriched with these three first-order non-logical axioms has
the very useful property that it allows us to have a form of the ‘unselec-
tive binding’ that seems to be omnipresent in natural language (see Lewis
[1975]). Since states correspond to lists of items, quantifying over states cor-
responds to quantifying over such lists. The following lemma gives a precise
formulation of this phenomenon; it has an elementary proof.
Unselective Binding Lemma. Let u1 ,. . . ,un be constants of type π, let
x 1,... ,xn be distinct variables of type e, let φ be a formula that does not
contain j and let = be the result of the simultaneous substitution of V(u 1 )(j)
for x 1 and ... and V(un)(j) for xn in φ, then:
=AX ∀i (∃j (i [u 1,... ,u n ]j ∧ φ0) → ∃x 1... ∃x n φ)
=AX ∀i (∀j (i [u 1,... ,U n ]j → ψ0) ^ ∀x 1... ∀x n φ)
We now come to the emulation of the DRT language in type logic. Let us fix
some type s variable i and define (u = = V(u)(i) for each discourse referent
(constant of type π) u and (t = = t for each type e term t, and let us agree
to write
P τ for λiP (τ=,
τ 1 Rτ 2 for λi (R(τ 1 = (τ 2= ),
τ 1 is τ2 for λi((τ 1 = = (τ2= ),
More intriguing information
1. Competition In or For the Field: Which is Better2. The name is absent
3. Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding and its determinants in first 6 months of life: A prospective study
4. Skill and work experience in the European knowledge economy
5. Sectoral specialisation in the EU a macroeconomic perspective
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Regional science policy and the growth of knowledge megacentres in bioscience clusters
9. Modelling Transport in an Interregional General Equilibrium Model with Externalities
10. Tax Increment Financing for Optimal Open Space Preservation: an Economic Inquiry