Variables and LanguageObject language and meta-languageAre there some kind of “multialgebras” with terms...
What was required to accept "troll"?
Does "Dominei" mean something?
Word describing multiple paths to the same abstract outcome
Lightning Web Component - do I need to track changes for every single input field in a form
How to deal with or prevent idle in the test team?
My boss asked me to take a one-day class, then signs it up as a day off
Why is delta-v is the most useful quantity for planning space travel?
What to do when my ideas aren't chosen, when I strongly disagree with the chosen solution?
Is there a problem with hiding "forgot password" until it's needed?
Who must act to prevent Brexit on March 29th?
Is there enough fresh water in the world to eradicate the drinking water crisis?
Simple image editor tool to draw a simple box/rectangle in an existing image
Can I create an upright 7-foot × 5-foot wall with the Minor Illusion spell?
What if somebody invests in my application?
Lifted its hind leg on or lifted its hind leg towards?
Why are all the doors on Ferenginar (the Ferengi home world) far shorter than the average Ferengi?
Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?
For airliners, what prevents wing strikes on landing in bad weather?
Calculating the number of days between 2 dates in Excel
How to color a zone in Tikz
Can the harmonic series explain the origin of the major scale?
Can a malicious addon access internet history and such in chrome/firefox?
Are taller landing gear bad for aircraft, particulary large airliners?
Do all polymers contain either carbon or silicon?
Variables and Language
Object language and meta-languageAre there some kind of “multialgebras” with terms or equations, where an operation can result with different values in different places?Logical implicationAn implication for the real numbers given decidability on formal systems .What is a counterexample in a formalized setting of mathematicsTransfinite Cardinals and Expressive PowerFoundations of math and primitive terms leading to Russells paradoxFirst-order logic where constants play the role of variablesConnection between interpretation, variable assignment and truth valuation.Free variables, parameters, dummy names — what policy to choose?
$begingroup$
I've been thinking lately about the kind of language we use when doing math involving variables. Consider a typical variable defining statement:
"Let x = 2."
If we try to parse this statement literally, 'x' is the name of some object we are letting equal 2. However, if 'x' is already the name of something (even if we don't know the exact object it is the name of), we get nonsense. For example, if 'x' is the name of the country Canada, then the let statement becomes
"Let Canada = 2,"
which is nonsense. We could also try to interpret 'x' as the pronoun 'it,' which leads to
"Let it = 2,"
but this is also problematic because pronouns in the English language (to the best of my knowledge) are never bound explicitly (for example, in the sentence "I cannot remember this equation because it has too many terms," the pronoun 'it' gets bound by context to 'this equation').
There are numerous other places in mathematics where trying to interpret a variable literally as a noun or pronoun leads to problems. For instance, the sentence
"If $x$ increases, then $x^{-1}$ decreases,"
suggests that 'x' is the name of some object that is truly capable of change. However, objects like this do not exist in mathematics, e.g. the number 1 is always 1, has always been 1, and never ceases to be 1.
Further examples arise when trying to parse statements involving the quantifiers $forall$ and $exists$.
My question: (1) How exactly should we understand variables? Can we formalize any further our intuition that they are symbols that may stand for any object?
(2) Given (1), how do we properly incorporate variables into our everyday language so that all of our mathematical statements have clear, unambiguous meanings?
algebra-precalculus logic formal-languages philosophy
asked Mar 14 at 21:05
Fourier's MonsterFourier's Monster
41
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've been thinking lately about the kind of language we use when doing math involving variables. Consider a typical variable defining statement:
"Let x = 2."
If we try to parse this statement literally, 'x' is the name of some object we are letting equal 2. However, if 'x' is already the name of something (even if we don't know the exact object it is the name of), we get nonsense. For example, if 'x' is the name of the country Canada, then the let statement becomes
"Let Canada = 2,"
which is nonsense. We could also try to interpret 'x' as the pronoun 'it,' which leads to
"Let it = 2,"
but this is also problematic because pronouns in the English language (to the best of my knowledge) are never bound explicitly (for example, in the sentence "I cannot remember this equation because it has too many terms," the pronoun 'it' gets bound by context to 'this equation').
There are numerous other places in mathematics where trying to interpret a variable literally as a noun or pronoun leads to problems. For instance, the sentence
"If $x$ increases, then $x^{-1}$ decreases,"
suggests that 'x' is the name of some object that is truly capable of change. However, objects like this do not exist in mathematics, e.g. the number 1 is always 1, has always been 1, and never ceases to be 1.
Further examples arise when trying to parse statements involving the quantifiers $forall$ and $exists$.
My question: (1) How exactly should we understand variables? Can we formalize any further our intuition that they are symbols that may stand for any object?
(2) Given (1), how do we properly incorporate variables into our everyday language so that all of our mathematical statements have clear, unambiguous meanings?
algebra-precalculus logic formal-languages philosophy
asked Mar 14 at 21:05
Fourier's MonsterFourier's Monster
41
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
A variable $x$ occurring in a formula like $x=2$ acts as a pronoun in natural Language. When we assert "it is red", we assume that there is some context such that the listener can understand what "it" refers to: for example, pointing with my finger to the red pen on my desk.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:37
$begingroup$
In the same way, the formula $x=2$ must be understood in the context. In math, it is often customary to omit the leading universal quantifiers (for example in stating axioms). If so, the formula is $forall x (x=2)$. In the context of predicate logic, there are some "mechanism" (like e.g. variable assignment functions) to assign "temporary meaning" to free variables of formulas (i.e. a formal mechanism to provide a "context").
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've been thinking lately about the kind of language we use when doing math involving variables. Consider a typical variable defining statement:
"Let x = 2."
If we try to parse this statement literally, 'x' is the name of some object we are letting equal 2. However, if 'x' is already the name of something (even if we don't know the exact object it is the name of), we get nonsense. For example, if 'x' is the name of the country Canada, then the let statement becomes
"Let Canada = 2,"
which is nonsense. We could also try to interpret 'x' as the pronoun 'it,' which leads to
"Let it = 2,"
but this is also problematic because pronouns in the English language (to the best of my knowledge) are never bound explicitly (for example, in the sentence "I cannot remember this equation because it has too many terms," the pronoun 'it' gets bound by context to 'this equation').
There are numerous other places in mathematics where trying to interpret a variable literally as a noun or pronoun leads to problems. For instance, the sentence
"If $x$ increases, then $x^{-1}$ decreases,"
suggests that 'x' is the name of some object that is truly capable of change. However, objects like this do not exist in mathematics, e.g. the number 1 is always 1, has always been 1, and never ceases to be 1.
Further examples arise when trying to parse statements involving the quantifiers $forall$ and $exists$.
My question: (1) How exactly should we understand variables? Can we formalize any further our intuition that they are symbols that may stand for any object?
(2) Given (1), how do we properly incorporate variables into our everyday language so that all of our mathematical statements have clear, unambiguous meanings?
algebra-precalculus logic formal-languages philosophy
asked Mar 14 at 21:05
Fourier's MonsterFourier's Monster
41
$endgroup$
I've been thinking lately about the kind of language we use when doing math involving variables. Consider a typical variable defining statement:
"Let x = 2."
If we try to parse this statement literally, 'x' is the name of some object we are letting equal 2. However, if 'x' is already the name of something (even if we don't know the exact object it is the name of), we get nonsense. For example, if 'x' is the name of the country Canada, then the let statement becomes
"Let Canada = 2,"
which is nonsense. We could also try to interpret 'x' as the pronoun 'it,' which leads to
"Let it = 2,"
but this is also problematic because pronouns in the English language (to the best of my knowledge) are never bound explicitly (for example, in the sentence "I cannot remember this equation because it has too many terms," the pronoun 'it' gets bound by context to 'this equation').
There are numerous other places in mathematics where trying to interpret a variable literally as a noun or pronoun leads to problems. For instance, the sentence
"If $x$ increases, then $x^{-1}$ decreases,"
suggests that 'x' is the name of some object that is truly capable of change. However, objects like this do not exist in mathematics, e.g. the number 1 is always 1, has always been 1, and never ceases to be 1.
Further examples arise when trying to parse statements involving the quantifiers $forall$ and $exists$.
My question: (1) How exactly should we understand variables? Can we formalize any further our intuition that they are symbols that may stand for any object?
(2) Given (1), how do we properly incorporate variables into our everyday language so that all of our mathematical statements have clear, unambiguous meanings?
algebra-precalculus logic formal-languages philosophy
algebra-precalculus logic formal-languages philosophy
asked Mar 14 at 21:05
Fourier's MonsterFourier's Monster
41
asked Mar 14 at 21:05
Fourier's MonsterFourier's Monster
41
asked Mar 14 at 21:05
Fourier's MonsterFourier's Monster
41
asked Mar 14 at 21:05
Fourier's MonsterFourier's Monster
41
asked Mar 14 at 21:05
Fourier's MonsterFourier's Monster
41
41
$begingroup$
A variable $x$ occurring in a formula like $x=2$ acts as a pronoun in natural Language. When we assert "it is red", we assume that there is some context such that the listener can understand what "it" refers to: for example, pointing with my finger to the red pen on my desk.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:37
$begingroup$
In the same way, the formula $x=2$ must be understood in the context. In math, it is often customary to omit the leading universal quantifiers (for example in stating axioms). If so, the formula is $forall x (x=2)$. In the context of predicate logic, there are some "mechanism" (like e.g. variable assignment functions) to assign "temporary meaning" to free variables of formulas (i.e. a formal mechanism to provide a "context").
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A variable $x$ occurring in a formula like $x=2$ acts as a pronoun in natural Language. When we assert "it is red", we assume that there is some context such that the listener can understand what "it" refers to: for example, pointing with my finger to the red pen on my desk.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:37
$begingroup$
In the same way, the formula $x=2$ must be understood in the context. In math, it is often customary to omit the leading universal quantifiers (for example in stating axioms). If so, the formula is $forall x (x=2)$. In the context of predicate logic, there are some "mechanism" (like e.g. variable assignment functions) to assign "temporary meaning" to free variables of formulas (i.e. a formal mechanism to provide a "context").
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:40
$begingroup$
A variable $x$ occurring in a formula like $x=2$ acts as a pronoun in natural Language. When we assert "it is red", we assume that there is some context such that the listener can understand what "it" refers to: for example, pointing with my finger to the red pen on my desk.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:37
$begingroup$
A variable $x$ occurring in a formula like $x=2$ acts as a pronoun in natural Language. When we assert "it is red", we assume that there is some context such that the listener can understand what "it" refers to: for example, pointing with my finger to the red pen on my desk.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:37
$begingroup$
In the same way, the formula $x=2$ must be understood in the context. In math, it is often customary to omit the leading universal quantifiers (for example in stating axioms). If so, the formula is $forall x (x=2)$. In the context of predicate logic, there are some "mechanism" (like e.g. variable assignment functions) to assign "temporary meaning" to free variables of formulas (i.e. a formal mechanism to provide a "context").
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:40
$begingroup$
In the same way, the formula $x=2$ must be understood in the context. In math, it is often customary to omit the leading universal quantifiers (for example in stating axioms). If so, the formula is $forall x (x=2)$. In the context of predicate logic, there are some "mechanism" (like e.g. variable assignment functions) to assign "temporary meaning" to free variables of formulas (i.e. a formal mechanism to provide a "context").
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:40
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
(1) natural language doesn't really have variables. The nearest you can get to "let x = 2" is to say something like "let's think of the number 2 and, for convenience, let's refer to it as x". So after you've said that "x" acts as a noun denoting 2.
(2) In statements like "if $x$ increases then $x^{-1}$" decreases, we are using a standard mathematical convention whereby a formula like $x$ or $x^{-1}$ is interpreted as a function of the variable $x$ ($x mapsto x$ or $x mapsto x^{-1}$). It then makes sense to talk about the function as increasing or decreasing.
answered Mar 14 at 21:41
Rob ArthanRob Arthan
29.5k42967
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think the issue is that in natural language we rarely need to distinguish between how we denote an object and the object itself. In the present context, this means distinguishing between a variable (which is a symbol, such as 'x') and its value (the actual object the variable denotes). In "Let x = 2", it makes no sense to regard 'x' as being a name with a referent. However, if I write "Let the value of x = 2", then there is no ambiguity. In any sentence involving x, you could replace "x" by a phrase tantamount to "the value of x" and have a perfectly clear statement in natural language.
$endgroup$
– Fourier's Monster
Mar 15 at 0:00
$begingroup$
In natural and logical languages we always distinguish between denotations and the objects they denote: an elephant is not a word or a constant symbol. Natural languages don't really have anything like variables: the closest we get in English is pronouns, which act like variables but with a fixed repertoire of variable names "I", "you", "he", "she" etc. and with the denotation of the variable fixed by the context. If you write "let x = 2" or "let the value of x = 2". then you have moved outside natural language, and I think the best way of paraphrasing the meaning is as in my answer.
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Mar 16 at 22:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Variables are a way for us to abstract over things. If we can make a statement for all humans, instead of repeating the statement for each human, we can abstract over them with a variable and say "Let $x$ be a human, then [...]" in a succinct and clear way.
From the context in which one uses a variable it is clear what that variable ranges over. That range constitutes the domain of a variable. For example, in the previous statement it was clear (explicitly stated) that $x$ ranges over all humans ("Let $x$ be a human"). Sometimes, though, the domain is not explicitly stated. In those cases you can assume the most general domain that you can guess. In your example ("Let $x = 2$"), one guesses that $x$ is a number and can not be a cookie.
Regarding your 2nd question, in math we use nominal representation of variables: we represent variables with names, like "$x$", "$y$" or "$it$". In the nominal representation, there is no other way to avoid the problem you describe than to keep track of all the names of the variables that we have introduced in the context. Things can get complicated when variables have local scopes, which means that you can introduce a variable $x$ and later discharge it, allowing you to re-use the name $x$ for another variable later on.
Using names to represent variables, makes it easy for us to refer to variables: we just use their names. In the context of formal languages, another way to represent variables is by numbers (de Bruijn indices, nameless representation). If we would use such a representation in natural language (totally not recommended), referring to a variable would translate to something like "the first/second/... variable I introduced". This representation ensures that no common name between two different variables can occur, but it takes a lot of counting to refer to them and is not recommended for humans.
answered Mar 14 at 22:47
frabalafrabala
2,3541122
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3148508%2fvariables-and-language%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
(1) natural language doesn't really have variables. The nearest you can get to "let x = 2" is to say something like "let's think of the number 2 and, for convenience, let's refer to it as x". So after you've said that "x" acts as a noun denoting 2.
(2) In statements like "if $x$ increases then $x^{-1}$" decreases, we are using a standard mathematical convention whereby a formula like $x$ or $x^{-1}$ is interpreted as a function of the variable $x$ ($x mapsto x$ or $x mapsto x^{-1}$). It then makes sense to talk about the function as increasing or decreasing.
answered Mar 14 at 21:41
Rob ArthanRob Arthan
29.5k42967
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think the issue is that in natural language we rarely need to distinguish between how we denote an object and the object itself. In the present context, this means distinguishing between a variable (which is a symbol, such as 'x') and its value (the actual object the variable denotes). In "Let x = 2", it makes no sense to regard 'x' as being a name with a referent. However, if I write "Let the value of x = 2", then there is no ambiguity. In any sentence involving x, you could replace "x" by a phrase tantamount to "the value of x" and have a perfectly clear statement in natural language.
$endgroup$
– Fourier's Monster
Mar 15 at 0:00
$begingroup$
In natural and logical languages we always distinguish between denotations and the objects they denote: an elephant is not a word or a constant symbol. Natural languages don't really have anything like variables: the closest we get in English is pronouns, which act like variables but with a fixed repertoire of variable names "I", "you", "he", "she" etc. and with the denotation of the variable fixed by the context. If you write "let x = 2" or "let the value of x = 2". then you have moved outside natural language, and I think the best way of paraphrasing the meaning is as in my answer.
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Mar 16 at 22:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(1) natural language doesn't really have variables. The nearest you can get to "let x = 2" is to say something like "let's think of the number 2 and, for convenience, let's refer to it as x". So after you've said that "x" acts as a noun denoting 2.
(2) In statements like "if $x$ increases then $x^{-1}$" decreases, we are using a standard mathematical convention whereby a formula like $x$ or $x^{-1}$ is interpreted as a function of the variable $x$ ($x mapsto x$ or $x mapsto x^{-1}$). It then makes sense to talk about the function as increasing or decreasing.
answered Mar 14 at 21:41
Rob ArthanRob Arthan
29.5k42967
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think the issue is that in natural language we rarely need to distinguish between how we denote an object and the object itself. In the present context, this means distinguishing between a variable (which is a symbol, such as 'x') and its value (the actual object the variable denotes). In "Let x = 2", it makes no sense to regard 'x' as being a name with a referent. However, if I write "Let the value of x = 2", then there is no ambiguity. In any sentence involving x, you could replace "x" by a phrase tantamount to "the value of x" and have a perfectly clear statement in natural language.
$endgroup$
– Fourier's Monster
Mar 15 at 0:00
$begingroup$
In natural and logical languages we always distinguish between denotations and the objects they denote: an elephant is not a word or a constant symbol. Natural languages don't really have anything like variables: the closest we get in English is pronouns, which act like variables but with a fixed repertoire of variable names "I", "you", "he", "she" etc. and with the denotation of the variable fixed by the context. If you write "let x = 2" or "let the value of x = 2". then you have moved outside natural language, and I think the best way of paraphrasing the meaning is as in my answer.
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Mar 16 at 22:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(1) natural language doesn't really have variables. The nearest you can get to "let x = 2" is to say something like "let's think of the number 2 and, for convenience, let's refer to it as x". So after you've said that "x" acts as a noun denoting 2.
(2) In statements like "if $x$ increases then $x^{-1}$" decreases, we are using a standard mathematical convention whereby a formula like $x$ or $x^{-1}$ is interpreted as a function of the variable $x$ ($x mapsto x$ or $x mapsto x^{-1}$). It then makes sense to talk about the function as increasing or decreasing.
answered Mar 14 at 21:41
Rob ArthanRob Arthan
29.5k42967
$endgroup$
(1) natural language doesn't really have variables. The nearest you can get to "let x = 2" is to say something like "let's think of the number 2 and, for convenience, let's refer to it as x". So after you've said that "x" acts as a noun denoting 2.
(2) In statements like "if $x$ increases then $x^{-1}$" decreases, we are using a standard mathematical convention whereby a formula like $x$ or $x^{-1}$ is interpreted as a function of the variable $x$ ($x mapsto x$ or $x mapsto x^{-1}$). It then makes sense to talk about the function as increasing or decreasing.
answered Mar 14 at 21:41
Rob ArthanRob Arthan
29.5k42967
answered Mar 14 at 21:41
Rob ArthanRob Arthan
29.5k42967
answered Mar 14 at 21:41
Rob ArthanRob Arthan
29.5k42967
answered Mar 14 at 21:41
Rob ArthanRob Arthan
29.5k42967
29.5k42967
$begingroup$
I think the issue is that in natural language we rarely need to distinguish between how we denote an object and the object itself. In the present context, this means distinguishing between a variable (which is a symbol, such as 'x') and its value (the actual object the variable denotes). In "Let x = 2", it makes no sense to regard 'x' as being a name with a referent. However, if I write "Let the value of x = 2", then there is no ambiguity. In any sentence involving x, you could replace "x" by a phrase tantamount to "the value of x" and have a perfectly clear statement in natural language.
$endgroup$
– Fourier's Monster
Mar 15 at 0:00
$begingroup$
In natural and logical languages we always distinguish between denotations and the objects they denote: an elephant is not a word or a constant symbol. Natural languages don't really have anything like variables: the closest we get in English is pronouns, which act like variables but with a fixed repertoire of variable names "I", "you", "he", "she" etc. and with the denotation of the variable fixed by the context. If you write "let x = 2" or "let the value of x = 2". then you have moved outside natural language, and I think the best way of paraphrasing the meaning is as in my answer.
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Mar 16 at 22:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the issue is that in natural language we rarely need to distinguish between how we denote an object and the object itself. In the present context, this means distinguishing between a variable (which is a symbol, such as 'x') and its value (the actual object the variable denotes). In "Let x = 2", it makes no sense to regard 'x' as being a name with a referent. However, if I write "Let the value of x = 2", then there is no ambiguity. In any sentence involving x, you could replace "x" by a phrase tantamount to "the value of x" and have a perfectly clear statement in natural language.
$endgroup$
– Fourier's Monster
Mar 15 at 0:00
$begingroup$
In natural and logical languages we always distinguish between denotations and the objects they denote: an elephant is not a word or a constant symbol. Natural languages don't really have anything like variables: the closest we get in English is pronouns, which act like variables but with a fixed repertoire of variable names "I", "you", "he", "she" etc. and with the denotation of the variable fixed by the context. If you write "let x = 2" or "let the value of x = 2". then you have moved outside natural language, and I think the best way of paraphrasing the meaning is as in my answer.
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Mar 16 at 22:24
$begingroup$
I think the issue is that in natural language we rarely need to distinguish between how we denote an object and the object itself. In the present context, this means distinguishing between a variable (which is a symbol, such as 'x') and its value (the actual object the variable denotes). In "Let x = 2", it makes no sense to regard 'x' as being a name with a referent. However, if I write "Let the value of x = 2", then there is no ambiguity. In any sentence involving x, you could replace "x" by a phrase tantamount to "the value of x" and have a perfectly clear statement in natural language.
$endgroup$
– Fourier's Monster
Mar 15 at 0:00
$begingroup$
I think the issue is that in natural language we rarely need to distinguish between how we denote an object and the object itself. In the present context, this means distinguishing between a variable (which is a symbol, such as 'x') and its value (the actual object the variable denotes). In "Let x = 2", it makes no sense to regard 'x' as being a name with a referent. However, if I write "Let the value of x = 2", then there is no ambiguity. In any sentence involving x, you could replace "x" by a phrase tantamount to "the value of x" and have a perfectly clear statement in natural language.
$endgroup$
– Fourier's Monster
Mar 15 at 0:00
$begingroup$
In natural and logical languages we always distinguish between denotations and the objects they denote: an elephant is not a word or a constant symbol. Natural languages don't really have anything like variables: the closest we get in English is pronouns, which act like variables but with a fixed repertoire of variable names "I", "you", "he", "she" etc. and with the denotation of the variable fixed by the context. If you write "let x = 2" or "let the value of x = 2". then you have moved outside natural language, and I think the best way of paraphrasing the meaning is as in my answer.
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Mar 16 at 22:24
$begingroup$
In natural and logical languages we always distinguish between denotations and the objects they denote: an elephant is not a word or a constant symbol. Natural languages don't really have anything like variables: the closest we get in English is pronouns, which act like variables but with a fixed repertoire of variable names "I", "you", "he", "she" etc. and with the denotation of the variable fixed by the context. If you write "let x = 2" or "let the value of x = 2". then you have moved outside natural language, and I think the best way of paraphrasing the meaning is as in my answer.
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Mar 16 at 22:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Variables are a way for us to abstract over things. If we can make a statement for all humans, instead of repeating the statement for each human, we can abstract over them with a variable and say "Let $x$ be a human, then [...]" in a succinct and clear way.
From the context in which one uses a variable it is clear what that variable ranges over. That range constitutes the domain of a variable. For example, in the previous statement it was clear (explicitly stated) that $x$ ranges over all humans ("Let $x$ be a human"). Sometimes, though, the domain is not explicitly stated. In those cases you can assume the most general domain that you can guess. In your example ("Let $x = 2$"), one guesses that $x$ is a number and can not be a cookie.
Regarding your 2nd question, in math we use nominal representation of variables: we represent variables with names, like "$x$", "$y$" or "$it$". In the nominal representation, there is no other way to avoid the problem you describe than to keep track of all the names of the variables that we have introduced in the context. Things can get complicated when variables have local scopes, which means that you can introduce a variable $x$ and later discharge it, allowing you to re-use the name $x$ for another variable later on.
Using names to represent variables, makes it easy for us to refer to variables: we just use their names. In the context of formal languages, another way to represent variables is by numbers (de Bruijn indices, nameless representation). If we would use such a representation in natural language (totally not recommended), referring to a variable would translate to something like "the first/second/... variable I introduced". This representation ensures that no common name between two different variables can occur, but it takes a lot of counting to refer to them and is not recommended for humans.
answered Mar 14 at 22:47
frabalafrabala
2,3541122
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Variables are a way for us to abstract over things. If we can make a statement for all humans, instead of repeating the statement for each human, we can abstract over them with a variable and say "Let $x$ be a human, then [...]" in a succinct and clear way.
From the context in which one uses a variable it is clear what that variable ranges over. That range constitutes the domain of a variable. For example, in the previous statement it was clear (explicitly stated) that $x$ ranges over all humans ("Let $x$ be a human"). Sometimes, though, the domain is not explicitly stated. In those cases you can assume the most general domain that you can guess. In your example ("Let $x = 2$"), one guesses that $x$ is a number and can not be a cookie.
Regarding your 2nd question, in math we use nominal representation of variables: we represent variables with names, like "$x$", "$y$" or "$it$". In the nominal representation, there is no other way to avoid the problem you describe than to keep track of all the names of the variables that we have introduced in the context. Things can get complicated when variables have local scopes, which means that you can introduce a variable $x$ and later discharge it, allowing you to re-use the name $x$ for another variable later on.
Using names to represent variables, makes it easy for us to refer to variables: we just use their names. In the context of formal languages, another way to represent variables is by numbers (de Bruijn indices, nameless representation). If we would use such a representation in natural language (totally not recommended), referring to a variable would translate to something like "the first/second/... variable I introduced". This representation ensures that no common name between two different variables can occur, but it takes a lot of counting to refer to them and is not recommended for humans.
answered Mar 14 at 22:47
frabalafrabala
2,3541122
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Variables are a way for us to abstract over things. If we can make a statement for all humans, instead of repeating the statement for each human, we can abstract over them with a variable and say "Let $x$ be a human, then [...]" in a succinct and clear way.
From the context in which one uses a variable it is clear what that variable ranges over. That range constitutes the domain of a variable. For example, in the previous statement it was clear (explicitly stated) that $x$ ranges over all humans ("Let $x$ be a human"). Sometimes, though, the domain is not explicitly stated. In those cases you can assume the most general domain that you can guess. In your example ("Let $x = 2$"), one guesses that $x$ is a number and can not be a cookie.
Regarding your 2nd question, in math we use nominal representation of variables: we represent variables with names, like "$x$", "$y$" or "$it$". In the nominal representation, there is no other way to avoid the problem you describe than to keep track of all the names of the variables that we have introduced in the context. Things can get complicated when variables have local scopes, which means that you can introduce a variable $x$ and later discharge it, allowing you to re-use the name $x$ for another variable later on.
Using names to represent variables, makes it easy for us to refer to variables: we just use their names. In the context of formal languages, another way to represent variables is by numbers (de Bruijn indices, nameless representation). If we would use such a representation in natural language (totally not recommended), referring to a variable would translate to something like "the first/second/... variable I introduced". This representation ensures that no common name between two different variables can occur, but it takes a lot of counting to refer to them and is not recommended for humans.
answered Mar 14 at 22:47
frabalafrabala
2,3541122
$endgroup$
Variables are a way for us to abstract over things. If we can make a statement for all humans, instead of repeating the statement for each human, we can abstract over them with a variable and say "Let $x$ be a human, then [...]" in a succinct and clear way.
From the context in which one uses a variable it is clear what that variable ranges over. That range constitutes the domain of a variable. For example, in the previous statement it was clear (explicitly stated) that $x$ ranges over all humans ("Let $x$ be a human"). Sometimes, though, the domain is not explicitly stated. In those cases you can assume the most general domain that you can guess. In your example ("Let $x = 2$"), one guesses that $x$ is a number and can not be a cookie.
Regarding your 2nd question, in math we use nominal representation of variables: we represent variables with names, like "$x$", "$y$" or "$it$". In the nominal representation, there is no other way to avoid the problem you describe than to keep track of all the names of the variables that we have introduced in the context. Things can get complicated when variables have local scopes, which means that you can introduce a variable $x$ and later discharge it, allowing you to re-use the name $x$ for another variable later on.
Using names to represent variables, makes it easy for us to refer to variables: we just use their names. In the context of formal languages, another way to represent variables is by numbers (de Bruijn indices, nameless representation). If we would use such a representation in natural language (totally not recommended), referring to a variable would translate to something like "the first/second/... variable I introduced". This representation ensures that no common name between two different variables can occur, but it takes a lot of counting to refer to them and is not recommended for humans.
answered Mar 14 at 22:47
frabalafrabala
2,3541122
edited Mar 14 at 23:18
answered Mar 14 at 22:47
frabalafrabala
2,3541122
answered Mar 14 at 22:47
frabalafrabala
2,3541122
answered Mar 14 at 22:47
frabalafrabala
2,3541122
2,3541122
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3148508%2fvariables-and-language%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
A variable $x$ occurring in a formula like $x=2$ acts as a pronoun in natural Language. When we assert "it is red", we assume that there is some context such that the listener can understand what "it" refers to: for example, pointing with my finger to the red pen on my desk.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:37
$begingroup$
In the same way, the formula $x=2$ must be understood in the context. In math, it is often customary to omit the leading universal quantifiers (for example in stating axioms). If so, the formula is $forall x (x=2)$. In the context of predicate logic, there are some "mechanism" (like e.g. variable assignment functions) to assign "temporary meaning" to free variables of formulas (i.e. a formal mechanism to provide a "context").
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 15 at 7:40