Mixing
Why is residues modulo 2 a model for natural numbers
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am reading the book "Introduction to Metamathematics" by Kleene. I am now in Chapter 8 which is about "Systems of objects". I must warn you that this chapter is meant to be an introduction and, therefore, it is written in an intuitive language. Still, I would like to understand the details.
There, he defines:
By a system of objects, we mean a set or class or domain $D$ of objects among which are established certain relationships. For example, the natural number sequence (given in his previous chapters by something very similar to Peano axioms) constitutes a system of the type $(D,0,')$, where $D$ is a set, $0$ is the member of the set, and $'$ is a unary operation.
Any specification of what the objects are gives a model of the system, i.e. a system of objects which satisfy the relationships and have some further status as well.
Two models of the same abstract system are isomorphic, i.e. can be put into 1-1 correspondence preserving the relationships.
Then, he gives an example of a model for the abstract system $(D, 0, ')$ to be the one with two distinct objects $0$ and $1$, where $0' = 1$ and $1' = 0$, and calls it residues modulo 2.
I do not see how this fits with the definitions.
I guess that usual natural numbers, i.e. sequence $0, 1, 2, ...$ is a model for the natural numbers.
Question 1: Are natural numbers a model for natural numbers $(D, 0, ')$ ? Intuitively, I feel that they are, because I give some information about the objects of the system, in a sense that I give names for each of the objects.
From definition 3, two models of the same abstract system can be put into 1-1 correspondence. Now, if residues modulo 2 have only two objects then I do not see how that could be given a 1-1 correspondence to a sequence $0, 1, 2, ... $, which I assume is a model for the abstract system of natural numbers.
What intuitively I would think could solve the problem is, that, for example, we have ordered pairs $(0, 0), (1, 0), (0, 1), ...$, where the first coordinate would be the way we wanted it to be, but the second coordinate shows which time $0$ or $1$ is produced.
Question 2: How can the model of residues modulo 2 be given a 1-1 correspondence with other models, such as natural number sequence?
I would appreciate your help and any comments.
logic
asked Jul 19 at 9:04
Daniels Krimans
1727
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am reading the book "Introduction to Metamathematics" by Kleene. I am now in Chapter 8 which is about "Systems of objects". I must warn you that this chapter is meant to be an introduction and, therefore, it is written in an intuitive language. Still, I would like to understand the details.
There, he defines:
By a system of objects, we mean a set or class or domain $D$ of objects among which are established certain relationships. For example, the natural number sequence (given in his previous chapters by something very similar to Peano axioms) constitutes a system of the type $(D,0,')$, where $D$ is a set, $0$ is the member of the set, and $'$ is a unary operation.
Any specification of what the objects are gives a model of the system, i.e. a system of objects which satisfy the relationships and have some further status as well.
Two models of the same abstract system are isomorphic, i.e. can be put into 1-1 correspondence preserving the relationships.
Then, he gives an example of a model for the abstract system $(D, 0, ')$ to be the one with two distinct objects $0$ and $1$, where $0' = 1$ and $1' = 0$, and calls it residues modulo 2.
I do not see how this fits with the definitions.
I guess that usual natural numbers, i.e. sequence $0, 1, 2, ...$ is a model for the natural numbers.
Question 1: Are natural numbers a model for natural numbers $(D, 0, ')$ ? Intuitively, I feel that they are, because I give some information about the objects of the system, in a sense that I give names for each of the objects.
From definition 3, two models of the same abstract system can be put into 1-1 correspondence. Now, if residues modulo 2 have only two objects then I do not see how that could be given a 1-1 correspondence to a sequence $0, 1, 2, ... $, which I assume is a model for the abstract system of natural numbers.
What intuitively I would think could solve the problem is, that, for example, we have ordered pairs $(0, 0), (1, 0), (0, 1), ...$, where the first coordinate would be the way we wanted it to be, but the second coordinate shows which time $0$ or $1$ is produced.
Question 2: How can the model of residues modulo 2 be given a 1-1 correspondence with other models, such as natural number sequence?
I would appreciate your help and any comments.
logic
asked Jul 19 at 9:04
Daniels Krimans
1727
3
$D=0,1$ is a set. $D$ has an element labelled $0$. $'$ defined by $0'=1$ and $1'=0$ is a function $Dto D$. Does Kleene mean anything more than that?
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jul 19 at 9:18
1
It looks confusing to me. Apparently by a "system" Kleene means what a modern introductory text would call an "interpretation" or "structure" over a particular logical language, and then, if the quote/paraphrase is correct, he spends effort on defining "model" to mean exactly the same thing once over again.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:30
1
Certainly the example of integers modulo 2 doesn't appear to show any more than that they are a structure over the language $0,'$. That he includes a $D$ symbol in the triple $(D,0,')$ may indicate that he's aiming for many-sorted logic, but it's hard to tell here.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:33
1
@DanielsKrimans: What you quote here doesn't look like he's expecting it to satisfy particular axioms. However it is true that the usual meaning of "model" is a interpretation/structure that does satisfy the axioms of whichever theory you're considering. If you're paraphrasing rather than quoting it may be you have missed a statement to that effect.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:00
1
It makes it a bit difficult to answer the question that what you seem to be describing is a rather non-standard usage of the words, and it is not clear without having to book whether it is Kleene who uses the words in a (these days) non-standard way or you who misunderstand what he's saying -- and in the first case whether to answer with an explanation of the standard usage or by trying to divine a consistent meaning of what Kleene is saying.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:02
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I am reading the book "Introduction to Metamathematics" by Kleene. I am now in Chapter 8 which is about "Systems of objects". I must warn you that this chapter is meant to be an introduction and, therefore, it is written in an intuitive language. Still, I would like to understand the details.
There, he defines:
By a system of objects, we mean a set or class or domain $D$ of objects among which are established certain relationships. For example, the natural number sequence (given in his previous chapters by something very similar to Peano axioms) constitutes a system of the type $(D,0,')$, where $D$ is a set, $0$ is the member of the set, and $'$ is a unary operation.
Any specification of what the objects are gives a model of the system, i.e. a system of objects which satisfy the relationships and have some further status as well.
Two models of the same abstract system are isomorphic, i.e. can be put into 1-1 correspondence preserving the relationships.
Then, he gives an example of a model for the abstract system $(D, 0, ')$ to be the one with two distinct objects $0$ and $1$, where $0' = 1$ and $1' = 0$, and calls it residues modulo 2.
I do not see how this fits with the definitions.
I guess that usual natural numbers, i.e. sequence $0, 1, 2, ...$ is a model for the natural numbers.
Question 1: Are natural numbers a model for natural numbers $(D, 0, ')$ ? Intuitively, I feel that they are, because I give some information about the objects of the system, in a sense that I give names for each of the objects.
From definition 3, two models of the same abstract system can be put into 1-1 correspondence. Now, if residues modulo 2 have only two objects then I do not see how that could be given a 1-1 correspondence to a sequence $0, 1, 2, ... $, which I assume is a model for the abstract system of natural numbers.
What intuitively I would think could solve the problem is, that, for example, we have ordered pairs $(0, 0), (1, 0), (0, 1), ...$, where the first coordinate would be the way we wanted it to be, but the second coordinate shows which time $0$ or $1$ is produced.
Question 2: How can the model of residues modulo 2 be given a 1-1 correspondence with other models, such as natural number sequence?
I would appreciate your help and any comments.
logic
asked Jul 19 at 9:04
Daniels Krimans
1727
I am reading the book "Introduction to Metamathematics" by Kleene. I am now in Chapter 8 which is about "Systems of objects". I must warn you that this chapter is meant to be an introduction and, therefore, it is written in an intuitive language. Still, I would like to understand the details.
There, he defines:
By a system of objects, we mean a set or class or domain $D$ of objects among which are established certain relationships. For example, the natural number sequence (given in his previous chapters by something very similar to Peano axioms) constitutes a system of the type $(D,0,')$, where $D$ is a set, $0$ is the member of the set, and $'$ is a unary operation.
Any specification of what the objects are gives a model of the system, i.e. a system of objects which satisfy the relationships and have some further status as well.
Two models of the same abstract system are isomorphic, i.e. can be put into 1-1 correspondence preserving the relationships.
Then, he gives an example of a model for the abstract system $(D, 0, ')$ to be the one with two distinct objects $0$ and $1$, where $0' = 1$ and $1' = 0$, and calls it residues modulo 2.
I do not see how this fits with the definitions.
I guess that usual natural numbers, i.e. sequence $0, 1, 2, ...$ is a model for the natural numbers.
Question 1: Are natural numbers a model for natural numbers $(D, 0, ')$ ? Intuitively, I feel that they are, because I give some information about the objects of the system, in a sense that I give names for each of the objects.
From definition 3, two models of the same abstract system can be put into 1-1 correspondence. Now, if residues modulo 2 have only two objects then I do not see how that could be given a 1-1 correspondence to a sequence $0, 1, 2, ... $, which I assume is a model for the abstract system of natural numbers.
What intuitively I would think could solve the problem is, that, for example, we have ordered pairs $(0, 0), (1, 0), (0, 1), ...$, where the first coordinate would be the way we wanted it to be, but the second coordinate shows which time $0$ or $1$ is produced.
Question 2: How can the model of residues modulo 2 be given a 1-1 correspondence with other models, such as natural number sequence?
I would appreciate your help and any comments.
logic
asked Jul 19 at 9:04
Daniels Krimans
1727
asked Jul 19 at 9:04
Daniels Krimans
1727
asked Jul 19 at 9:04
Daniels Krimans
1727
asked Jul 19 at 9:04
Daniels Krimans
1727
1727
3
$D=0,1$ is a set. $D$ has an element labelled $0$. $'$ defined by $0'=1$ and $1'=0$ is a function $Dto D$. Does Kleene mean anything more than that?
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jul 19 at 9:18
1
It looks confusing to me. Apparently by a "system" Kleene means what a modern introductory text would call an "interpretation" or "structure" over a particular logical language, and then, if the quote/paraphrase is correct, he spends effort on defining "model" to mean exactly the same thing once over again.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:30
1
Certainly the example of integers modulo 2 doesn't appear to show any more than that they are a structure over the language $0,'$. That he includes a $D$ symbol in the triple $(D,0,')$ may indicate that he's aiming for many-sorted logic, but it's hard to tell here.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:33
1
@DanielsKrimans: What you quote here doesn't look like he's expecting it to satisfy particular axioms. However it is true that the usual meaning of "model" is a interpretation/structure that does satisfy the axioms of whichever theory you're considering. If you're paraphrasing rather than quoting it may be you have missed a statement to that effect.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:00
1
It makes it a bit difficult to answer the question that what you seem to be describing is a rather non-standard usage of the words, and it is not clear without having to book whether it is Kleene who uses the words in a (these days) non-standard way or you who misunderstand what he's saying -- and in the first case whether to answer with an explanation of the standard usage or by trying to divine a consistent meaning of what Kleene is saying.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:02
 |Â
show 7 more comments
3
$D=0,1$ is a set. $D$ has an element labelled $0$. $'$ defined by $0'=1$ and $1'=0$ is a function $Dto D$. Does Kleene mean anything more than that?
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jul 19 at 9:18
1
It looks confusing to me. Apparently by a "system" Kleene means what a modern introductory text would call an "interpretation" or "structure" over a particular logical language, and then, if the quote/paraphrase is correct, he spends effort on defining "model" to mean exactly the same thing once over again.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:30
1
Certainly the example of integers modulo 2 doesn't appear to show any more than that they are a structure over the language $0,'$. That he includes a $D$ symbol in the triple $(D,0,')$ may indicate that he's aiming for many-sorted logic, but it's hard to tell here.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:33
1
@DanielsKrimans: What you quote here doesn't look like he's expecting it to satisfy particular axioms. However it is true that the usual meaning of "model" is a interpretation/structure that does satisfy the axioms of whichever theory you're considering. If you're paraphrasing rather than quoting it may be you have missed a statement to that effect.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:00
1
It makes it a bit difficult to answer the question that what you seem to be describing is a rather non-standard usage of the words, and it is not clear without having to book whether it is Kleene who uses the words in a (these days) non-standard way or you who misunderstand what he's saying -- and in the first case whether to answer with an explanation of the standard usage or by trying to divine a consistent meaning of what Kleene is saying.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:02
3
3
$D=0,1$ is a set. $D$ has an element labelled $0$. $'$ defined by $0'=1$ and $1'=0$ is a function $Dto D$. Does Kleene mean anything more than that?
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jul 19 at 9:18
$D=0,1$ is a set. $D$ has an element labelled $0$. $'$ defined by $0'=1$ and $1'=0$ is a function $Dto D$. Does Kleene mean anything more than that?
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jul 19 at 9:18
1
1
It looks confusing to me. Apparently by a "system" Kleene means what a modern introductory text would call an "interpretation" or "structure" over a particular logical language, and then, if the quote/paraphrase is correct, he spends effort on defining "model" to mean exactly the same thing once over again.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:30
It looks confusing to me. Apparently by a "system" Kleene means what a modern introductory text would call an "interpretation" or "structure" over a particular logical language, and then, if the quote/paraphrase is correct, he spends effort on defining "model" to mean exactly the same thing once over again.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:30
1
1
Certainly the example of integers modulo 2 doesn't appear to show any more than that they are a structure over the language $0,'$. That he includes a $D$ symbol in the triple $(D,0,')$ may indicate that he's aiming for many-sorted logic, but it's hard to tell here.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:33
Certainly the example of integers modulo 2 doesn't appear to show any more than that they are a structure over the language $0,'$. That he includes a $D$ symbol in the triple $(D,0,')$ may indicate that he's aiming for many-sorted logic, but it's hard to tell here.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:33
1
1
@DanielsKrimans: What you quote here doesn't look like he's expecting it to satisfy particular axioms. However it is true that the usual meaning of "model" is a interpretation/structure that does satisfy the axioms of whichever theory you're considering. If you're paraphrasing rather than quoting it may be you have missed a statement to that effect.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:00
@DanielsKrimans: What you quote here doesn't look like he's expecting it to satisfy particular axioms. However it is true that the usual meaning of "model" is a interpretation/structure that does satisfy the axioms of whichever theory you're considering. If you're paraphrasing rather than quoting it may be you have missed a statement to that effect.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:00
1
1
It makes it a bit difficult to answer the question that what you seem to be describing is a rather non-standard usage of the words, and it is not clear without having to book whether it is Kleene who uses the words in a (these days) non-standard way or you who misunderstand what he's saying -- and in the first case whether to answer with an explanation of the standard usage or by trying to divine a consistent meaning of what Kleene is saying.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:02
It makes it a bit difficult to answer the question that what you seem to be describing is a rather non-standard usage of the words, and it is not clear without having to book whether it is Kleene who uses the words in a (these days) non-standard way or you who misunderstand what he's saying -- and in the first case whether to answer with an explanation of the standard usage or by trying to divine a consistent meaning of what Kleene is saying.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:02
 |Â
show 7 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I've had a look at this now and agree that Kleene's terminology is a little confusing. (Aside: your reference isn't quite right: it's section 8 and is in chapter II.)
Kleene goes on to say that "two different systems $(D_1, 0_1, '_1)$ and $(D_2, 0_1, '_2)$ of type $(D, 0, ')$ are (simply) isomorphic if there exists a $1$-$1$ correspondence between $D_1$ and $D_2$ that [preserves all the structure]".
What Kleene is calling an "abstract system" is an isomorphism class of models in more modern terminology. When he says "model of the abstract system" he means "representative of the isomorphism class". His notation is a bit confusing: when he says "of type $(D, 0, ')$", he just means what we would nowadays call (a model) with signature $(0, ')$. In modern terminology, explicit representations of the natural numbers and of the residues modulo 2 give two different models for the signature $(0, ')$. In Kleene's terminology the two representations belong to two distinct abstract systems of the same type.
answered Jul 21 at 14:00
Rob Arthan
27.1k42863
1
Sorry for the wrong reference. Thanks for the answer, I think everything is clear for me now.
– Daniels Krimans
Jul 21 at 21:52
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I've had a look at this now and agree that Kleene's terminology is a little confusing. (Aside: your reference isn't quite right: it's section 8 and is in chapter II.)
Kleene goes on to say that "two different systems $(D_1, 0_1, '_1)$ and $(D_2, 0_1, '_2)$ of type $(D, 0, ')$ are (simply) isomorphic if there exists a $1$-$1$ correspondence between $D_1$ and $D_2$ that [preserves all the structure]".
What Kleene is calling an "abstract system" is an isomorphism class of models in more modern terminology. When he says "model of the abstract system" he means "representative of the isomorphism class". His notation is a bit confusing: when he says "of type $(D, 0, ')$", he just means what we would nowadays call (a model) with signature $(0, ')$. In modern terminology, explicit representations of the natural numbers and of the residues modulo 2 give two different models for the signature $(0, ')$. In Kleene's terminology the two representations belong to two distinct abstract systems of the same type.
answered Jul 21 at 14:00
Rob Arthan
27.1k42863
1
Sorry for the wrong reference. Thanks for the answer, I think everything is clear for me now.
– Daniels Krimans
Jul 21 at 21:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I've had a look at this now and agree that Kleene's terminology is a little confusing. (Aside: your reference isn't quite right: it's section 8 and is in chapter II.)
Kleene goes on to say that "two different systems $(D_1, 0_1, '_1)$ and $(D_2, 0_1, '_2)$ of type $(D, 0, ')$ are (simply) isomorphic if there exists a $1$-$1$ correspondence between $D_1$ and $D_2$ that [preserves all the structure]".
What Kleene is calling an "abstract system" is an isomorphism class of models in more modern terminology. When he says "model of the abstract system" he means "representative of the isomorphism class". His notation is a bit confusing: when he says "of type $(D, 0, ')$", he just means what we would nowadays call (a model) with signature $(0, ')$. In modern terminology, explicit representations of the natural numbers and of the residues modulo 2 give two different models for the signature $(0, ')$. In Kleene's terminology the two representations belong to two distinct abstract systems of the same type.
answered Jul 21 at 14:00
Rob Arthan
27.1k42863
1
Sorry for the wrong reference. Thanks for the answer, I think everything is clear for me now.
– Daniels Krimans
Jul 21 at 21:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I've had a look at this now and agree that Kleene's terminology is a little confusing. (Aside: your reference isn't quite right: it's section 8 and is in chapter II.)
Kleene goes on to say that "two different systems $(D_1, 0_1, '_1)$ and $(D_2, 0_1, '_2)$ of type $(D, 0, ')$ are (simply) isomorphic if there exists a $1$-$1$ correspondence between $D_1$ and $D_2$ that [preserves all the structure]".
What Kleene is calling an "abstract system" is an isomorphism class of models in more modern terminology. When he says "model of the abstract system" he means "representative of the isomorphism class". His notation is a bit confusing: when he says "of type $(D, 0, ')$", he just means what we would nowadays call (a model) with signature $(0, ')$. In modern terminology, explicit representations of the natural numbers and of the residues modulo 2 give two different models for the signature $(0, ')$. In Kleene's terminology the two representations belong to two distinct abstract systems of the same type.
answered Jul 21 at 14:00
Rob Arthan
27.1k42863
I've had a look at this now and agree that Kleene's terminology is a little confusing. (Aside: your reference isn't quite right: it's section 8 and is in chapter II.)
Kleene goes on to say that "two different systems $(D_1, 0_1, '_1)$ and $(D_2, 0_1, '_2)$ of type $(D, 0, ')$ are (simply) isomorphic if there exists a $1$-$1$ correspondence between $D_1$ and $D_2$ that [preserves all the structure]".
What Kleene is calling an "abstract system" is an isomorphism class of models in more modern terminology. When he says "model of the abstract system" he means "representative of the isomorphism class". His notation is a bit confusing: when he says "of type $(D, 0, ')$", he just means what we would nowadays call (a model) with signature $(0, ')$. In modern terminology, explicit representations of the natural numbers and of the residues modulo 2 give two different models for the signature $(0, ')$. In Kleene's terminology the two representations belong to two distinct abstract systems of the same type.
answered Jul 21 at 14:00
Rob Arthan
27.1k42863
answered Jul 21 at 14:00
Rob Arthan
27.1k42863
answered Jul 21 at 14:00
Rob Arthan
27.1k42863
answered Jul 21 at 14:00
Rob Arthan
27.1k42863
27.1k42863
1
Sorry for the wrong reference. Thanks for the answer, I think everything is clear for me now.
– Daniels Krimans
Jul 21 at 21:52
add a comment |Â
1
Sorry for the wrong reference. Thanks for the answer, I think everything is clear for me now.
– Daniels Krimans
Jul 21 at 21:52
1
1
Sorry for the wrong reference. Thanks for the answer, I think everything is clear for me now.
– Daniels Krimans
Jul 21 at 21:52
Sorry for the wrong reference. Thanks for the answer, I think everything is clear for me now.
– Daniels Krimans
Jul 21 at 21:52
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2856426%2fwhy-is-residues-modulo-2-a-model-for-natural-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
$D=0,1$ is a set. $D$ has an element labelled $0$. $'$ defined by $0'=1$ and $1'=0$ is a function $Dto D$. Does Kleene mean anything more than that?
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jul 19 at 9:18
1
It looks confusing to me. Apparently by a "system" Kleene means what a modern introductory text would call an "interpretation" or "structure" over a particular logical language, and then, if the quote/paraphrase is correct, he spends effort on defining "model" to mean exactly the same thing once over again.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:30
1
Certainly the example of integers modulo 2 doesn't appear to show any more than that they are a structure over the language $0,'$. That he includes a $D$ symbol in the triple $(D,0,')$ may indicate that he's aiming for many-sorted logic, but it's hard to tell here.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 11:33
1
@DanielsKrimans: What you quote here doesn't look like he's expecting it to satisfy particular axioms. However it is true that the usual meaning of "model" is a interpretation/structure that does satisfy the axioms of whichever theory you're considering. If you're paraphrasing rather than quoting it may be you have missed a statement to that effect.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:00
1
It makes it a bit difficult to answer the question that what you seem to be describing is a rather non-standard usage of the words, and it is not clear without having to book whether it is Kleene who uses the words in a (these days) non-standard way or you who misunderstand what he's saying -- and in the first case whether to answer with an explanation of the standard usage or by trying to divine a consistent meaning of what Kleene is saying.
– Henning Makholm
Jul 19 at 15:02