You remember that we have in DIT something like a

a student sleeps. That gives us the DR.

Things like

X.

Something like that?

Yeah?

And do you see that we add the the big calories,

too?

Okay.

And you see that we, and the big advantage of DRT is that we are introducing newly, is

this ghost reference.

Just an observation.

One of the reasons we're doing all this language stuff in my group is that we want to understand

the linguistics of mathematics.

For a variety of reasons we're interested in that, we're interested in mathematical

knowledge and most of the mathematical knowledge in the world is actually written down in natural

language.

And we have quite a few phenomena where mathematical language is different from regular language.

And one of them has to do with discourse representation theory because we have this peculiar tradition

of giving things names.

Right?

And we have something like, when we want to say something like every, I don't know,

And in natural language we would say, in regular language we would say, indeed is.

It is, right?

But in math we very often say every differentiable function f is continuous and pick it up with

f again.

Or whenever we want to pick it up again, then we say something like this.

Or even more, we write something like every f in c1 r, r instead of this.

And so I would claim, or many people claim, that math is very convenient for the idea

because we have the discourse reference already.

The funny thing is, and I'm pretty sure you would not complain seeing this in the math

book, but the thing is that f is really, linguistically speaking, a universal variable.

We could also say, if then f is continuous, all of those kind of things.

We can say things like, then there is a matrix of all its functions.

And so that again, in this case, we have a distential discourse reference.

The reason for this is that we were to say it here, then we would have to do an aphor

resolution, linguistically, which may or may not lead to ambiguities like Peter Lassie's

dog, Fido, or something like this.

But giving stuff names makes things less ambiguous.

And so we're actually seeing quite a lot of this, of this giving names.

We see nameless referentations like every differentiable function is continuous, which

we very often see if we don't pick things up again.

If it's only this, we don't come back to it ever again, then we will probably not give

it a name.

Very often we do.

So that's an interesting pointer, I think, to this whole phenomenon of anaphora.

You see that, I think this naming, which by the way, we do in programming all the time.

If you think about functional programming language, they really, we have let statements

even more big and ugly with an A in there.

And so those are things that, where in programming we use names, but I believe Matt has first