Model Theory and Forgetful Functor

Going back to the conversation about forgetful functors.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Model Theory:

Sometimes we write or speak a sentence S that expresses nothing either true or false, because some crucial information is missing about what the words mean. If we go on to add this information, so that S comes to express a true or false statement, we are said to interpret S, and the added information is called an interpretation of S. If the interpretation I happens to make S state something true, we say that I is a model of S, or that I satisfies S, in symbols ‘I ⊨ S’. Another way of saying that I is a model of S is to say that S is true in I, and so we have the notion of model-theoretic truth, which is truth in a particular interpretation.

Whenever we see a statement S we can assume that it is missing the I portion. In short, the agent created a mapping from SxI to S, using a forgetful functor F: SxI -> S.

Right?

When I say "любой переход к модели - это forgetful functor" I mean that, to figure out the model I for S we have to figure out F. Most likely, my original statement is incorrect in mathematical sense.

The email scandal: an Army guy's perspective

Last night, I had an interesting conversation with a ranking Army officer about Clinton's email server. His position is quite straightforward: she violated the rules; therefore she's unfit to be the commander-in-chief. Period.

Then, I asked him how he felt about military officers that regularly violated rules and lied about it. First, he said it didn't happened. Then, when I showed him a recent report "LYING TO OURSELVES:
DISHONESTY IN THE ARMY PROFESSION" http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1250.pdf, he said, many Army officers lied because the hierarchy imposed reporting rules that were getting in the way of getting things done.

I asked, what if the rules that security officials imposed on the State Department were getting in the way of getting things done? At the same time, the security officials allowed people like Snowden and various hacking groups leak government documents at will. Moreover, the very same security officials were put in charge of prosecuting the State Department for violating the rules, while not being held responsible for their own shit. Is this fair?

So, we went back and forth, until it became clear to both of us that he perceived Clinton as the boss who imposed regulations on others but didn't follow them herself. The fact that she did not, didn't figure in his logic. In any case, he said, she's part of Washington and it had to be cleaned up.

Ok, I said, you were a part of the Army hierarchy that forced impossible rules on its officers. Do you need to be cleaned up? No, he said after some hesitation, because I didn't create the rules. Then, who created the rules? - The Washington!

As if, "the Washington" is one monolithic place that creates all the stupid rules and we all are innocent victims of the system. In the end, I almost said "Трамп прийде, порядок наведе!" :)

In any case, the whole thing will be over in less than 10 days.

An example

Identity Function: the Lydians

“Except for the practice of prostituting their young girls, the Lydians have nearly the same customs as the Hellenes. They were the first of all people we know of to use coinage struck from gold and silver, and the first to become retailers of goods they did not themselves produce.” --- Herodotus.

It looks like the Lydians invented the Uber business model; although they traded in goods rather than services.

Ружье на стене

Интересно, появятся ли "в газетах" на этой неделе налоговые декларации Трампа. Должен же быть (а)симметричный ответ на заявление ФБР. Ведь если у кого-то была первая страница, то должен был быть и весь документ.

Today I Learned

How a "magnificently" wrong science theory developed by Max van Pettenkofer helped solve the cholera problem and stimulated development of modern sanitation systems in the 19th century Europe.

"" (Watch on YouTube)

Contagionism vs Anticontagionism