{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02359882005899705, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.754237288135593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On Carnap sentences

In the present paper the tools of this argument are applied to another influential view, namely to the proposal that the analytical component of a theory is captured by its ‘Carnap sentence’. Recall that if S is a theory and S its Ramsey sentence, the corresponding Carnap sentence is the implication (S → S). The idea (originally suggested by Carnap) that such a Carnap sentence corresponds to the analytical part of a theory – more exactly, that the analytical truths of a theory are the consequences of its Carnap sentence – seems to enjoy some popularity. Note in particular that this view implies that Carnap sentences themselves are analytically true.