User talk:Lord Farin/Backup/Definition:Formal Language/Vocabulary

No sources given, nothing really links to it, and the term strikes me as awkward and unnecessary (besides conceptually misleading, for usually vocabulary pertains to words, not letters) time and time again. As I'm going to rewrite everything bottom up (don't worry, I'll let myself be guided by sources as much as possible) there is now an opportunity to ditch this definition. Thoughts? &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd rather it were not deleted completely, as I believe I must have got the term from somewhere. Exactly where I can not recall, but there are still various source works I have not completely worked through yet to extract citations. Feel free to stick a NoSources template in place if you wish, and I'll go through this again in due course to see whether I've missed a citation. --prime mover (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the improve template
I have come to an insight today as to the distinguishing feature of the letters as opposed to the signs. The letters and their interpretation may vary per signature/model, while the interpretation of the signs is fixed throughout all signatures/models of the language. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I have the definition of "signature" in any of the works I've got - but bear in mind those source works are for mathematical logic, and formal languages are introduced only as a stepping-stone towards that end. Like most books, basically. Although I confess I never penetrated very far into Bourbaki, as it's hard work breaking through the notation barrier. --prime mover (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Think of the predicate calculus situation: There it's just the selection of constants, function symbols, and relations. They vary, whilst the logical connectives stay the same. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)