Documentation

Linglib.Studies.ChatzikyriakidisEtAl2025

Chatzikyriakidis–Cooper–Gregoromichelaki–Sutton 2025: TTR intentional identity #

[CCGS25] §2.3.2 treats [Gea67]'s Hob–Nob puzzle — "Hob thinks a witch has blighted Bob's mare, and Nob wonders whether she (the same witch) killed Cob's sow" — following [Ran94]'s belief-context analysis, recast by [Coo23] with record types in place of contexts: Hob's and Nob's belief contexts overlap with respect to a shared witch component, which need not be witnessed. Types, unlike sets of worlds, are individuated intensionally (extEquiv_not_intEq below), so two agents' attitudes can concern the same possibly-empty type.

This file formalizes the shared-component core of the account: Hob's and Nob's contents both have witchType as a meet component while that type is empty. The full analysis additionally aligns labels across the agents' belief contexts ("indexed by the same variable in their respective belief contexts"), giving sameness of discourse referent rather than merely of type; that refinement awaits dependent record substrate, and without it component-sharing alone cannot distinguish "the same witch" from "a witch of the same kind" — the distinction [Ede86]'s asymmetry data make empirically load-bearing.

Main declarations #

Intensional types #

[Coo23] §1.3: types are individuated beyond their extensions — a name-tagged wrapper over a Lean carrier suffices for the Hob–Nob model.

An intensional type: a carrier tagged with an identity beyond its extension ([Coo23] §1.3).

  • carrier : Type

    The underlying Lean type (extension carrier)

  • name : String

    Intensional identity tag

Instances For

    Extensional equivalence: equivalent carriers.

    Equations
    Instances For

      Intensional identity.

      Equations
      • T₁.intEq T₂ = (T₁ = T₂)
      Instances For

        Meet: pair the carriers, compose the names — intensional identity is preserved through meet.

        Equations
        Instances For

          TTR model of the Hob–Nob puzzle #

          The shared witch type: empty carrier (no witch exists), individuated intensionally by its name.

          Equations
          Instances For

            "blighted Bob's mare" as a predicate type.

            Equations
            Instances For

              "killed Cob's sow" as a predicate type.

              Equations
              Instances For

                C has T as its left meet component: witnesses of C are pairs whose first coordinate inhabits T. Two contents stand in intentional identity when they share a component in this sense.

                Equations
                Instances For

                  The witch type is empty: no witch exists.

                  The two contents are intensionally distinct (their event components differ), even though both are empty.

                  The contents are extensionally equivalent (both carriers are empty) yet intensionally distinct — extensional equivalence does not entail intensional identity. An extensional semantics (Set W-style contents) identifies the two attitudes; TTR keeps them apart.

                  Intentional identity, TTR-style: Hob's and Nob's contents share the witch type as a common intensional component, are intensionally distinct contents, and the shared type is empty — both attitudes are "about the same witch-type" although no witch exists.

                  The model validates Examples.hobNob's key judgment: the discourse is acceptable although no witch need exist, and the model supplies shared cross-attitude content built on an empty type.