Lexicon of Arguments

 

III 334
Denoting/Frege: thesis: complete sentences denote ((s) i.e. sentences with unicorns are always wrong according to Frege.)
>Unicorn example/Kripke.
Kripke: non-denotating forms are e.g. xy: a form, e.g.(Sx)xys: is implied by each of its instances: f1 > y, f2 ↔ y, f2> y, f1 and y, etc. These are not even significant units - this is something other than transparency.
>Cf. >Opacity.
III 352
If the terms of the object language are denoting, the meta language must include referential quantification.
>Object language, >Meta langugage.
III 362
Denoting/denotation/Kripke: Problem: if some terms denote and others do not, then they are not held apart by Q(t,a): example (26c) Q(Zeus,Zeus) is just as true. ((s) Although Zeus denotes nothing.)
(19)(Px1)(E1a)(Q(x1,a1) and term(a1)) must therefore not be construed as referential and be read as everything is denoted by a term. Wallace makes this error: everything has a name, which he uses to show triumphantly that the substitutional quantification collapses to referential quantification. (KripkeVsWallace). Q(Cicero,Tullius) is incorrect.
>Naming/Kripke, >Nonexistence.
Name/denote/KripkeVsWallace: not everything needs to have a name - not every term denotes -(>Frege: each sentence is denoting: ((s) all sentences with unicorns are false or without truth value).
>Truth value, >Truth value gap.