> Agree. It seems that they (Zuhair, Peter, fom) _called_ a lot of things > "logic", up to the point that even if one _specifically stipulates_ > one is talking about _FOL_ logical symbols, they'd still call 'e' a > logical symbol.
I am reminded of Carnap's principle of tolerance which goes something like: there is no true logic or language, rather one is free to adopt whichever suits ones purpose. So if Smith wants to count 'e' as a logical symbols because it suits his purpose, while Jones wishes to exclude it to suit his purpose, they may. There is no more reason for Smith and Jones to come to blows than there is if one takes milk in his tea and the other lemon.
-- I think I am an Elephant, Behind another Elephant Behind /another/ Elephant who isn't really there.... A.A. Milne