## Sunday, January 08, 2017

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fortunately this is purely a question of logic, with minimal philosophical content.

>>if two putatively distinct entities are in fact numerically the same entity, then the names for these putatively distinct entities are co-referential: they designate one and the same entity.

Simplifying, where n(name, bearer) is the naming function:

Principle: (x)(y) [ x=y & n(‘x’,x) -> n(‘x’,y) ]

Thus
1. a=b
2. n(‘a’,a)
3. n(‘a’,b)

The move from 2 to 3 invokes your principle. Note the substitution of ‘b’ for ‘a’.

>>I don't see the need to invoke a principle of substitutivity. In the above inference there was no substitution of a name for a name.

But your inference involved the principle I formalised above, which is a specific instance of the principle of substitutivity. This does indeed require the substitution of a name for a name.

To win this game you need to formalise what you said above in a way that does not invoke substitutivity.

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

## Other Maverick Philosopher Sites

Member since 10/2008

## January 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31