On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 4:51:11 PM UTC-5, fom wrote: > On 10/9/2013 12:29 AM, Arturo Magidin wrote: > > > > > > Which just accomplishes the student lying to him or herself with the complicity of the professor who tells him its doable. > > > > > > Look: I don't object not telling a beginning student the whole truth; I **do** object telling him lies. > > > > > > > > > > Curious statement. > > > > Let me ask you about an actual situation. > > > > In the logic text I used as an undergraduate the notion of > > model had been introduced with respect to a "sentence" from > > a formal language. > > > > In Chang and Keisler, models apply to languages as a whole, and, > > a language is a list of uninterpreted parameters as in universal > > algebra. > > > > To be more clear concerning the first text, a "structure" is > > a "model" of a sentence if the sentence is "true with respect > > to a translation under the structure" > > > > Note that this is different from "true in a model" in the > > sense of Chang and Keisler. > > > > That is, a sentence may be true in a structure or > > a structure may be a model of a sentence. > > > > In my naivete, the latter suggests that an admissibility > > criterion applied to structures could influence something > > like the status of an independent statement. When one > > speaks of a model for a language, that notion does not > > suggest itself. > > > > Does this distinction appear legitimate to you?
I'm afraid I do not know enough about the topic to offer an informed opinion, and I confess I don't feel like trying to think through what you are describing at length right now.
> If so, has the student been told a lie?
From what you say, what you found *suggested* something to you that is inaccurate, but it did not actually make a false claim; the suggestion arose from your interpretation of what you were given, rather than being something you were explicitly told. If this is the case, then I would not interpret it as a lie.