E. Yost:
"Tarksi hasn't been in Manhattan two hours after a snowfall. Snow is
definitely gray. Ever more gray as the day wears on .... except in Central
Park."
Right. His other example is more controversial, and I haven't been able to
trace its presocratic pedigree. Tarski uses to introduce dyadic operators
(like "&")
"Snow is white and grass is green" is true, and that is
because snow and grass are (respectively) white and grass -- in that order."
I would think though that 'grass is green' is (in English, although most
likely NOT in Polish and German -- and Greek or Latin): tautological:
gr-ass: thing that gr-ows.
gr-een: colour of the thing that gr-ows.
In English, etymologically, grass (as we have Central Park to prove that)
cannot be BUT green. So we need no Tarski axiom for that, because we can infer
the biconditional of any analytically true sentence.
Cheers,
JL
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)