The syntax-semantic interface

by JLS
for the GC

JONES finishes his commentary on "Grice, Entailment", this blog, with:

---

"In Moore [1919, where he introduces "p ent q"], and in
any philosopher before Goedel, it is possible that, like
Hilbert, it has not occurred to them that there may be a
difference of extension between "derivable from" and "entailed by".
This may contribute to their not thinking the distinction important, or not noticing it at all. Explicit research on semantics is a very modern thing."

Good point. For the record, there's pp. 74-74 of T. Foster's book on logic, in googlebooks, on 'syntactic and semantic entailment'. He notes that indeed by some sort of hocus pocus one CAN make the two coincide, but points that there are some problems even then.

The book is "Logic, induction, and sets", and his phrasing goes:

"Just cook up the axioms and rules of inference so that
[p /- q iff p /= q]."

"Not so: there are funny theories that cannot be
expressed as rectypes in this way (see exercise
85 later)."

Of course, he fails to 'explicate' if he means funny-haha (I doubt it) or funny-peculiar. And if the later, so what? :)