137 ideas
18137 | Impredicative definitions are wrong, because they change the set that is being defined? [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Poincaré suggested that what is wrong with an impredicative definition is that it allows the set defined to alter its composition as more sets are added to the theory. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) |
13439 | Venn Diagrams map three predicates into eight compartments, then look for the conclusion [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Venn Diagrams are a traditional method to test validity of syllogisms. There are three interlocking circles, one for each predicate, thus dividing the universe into eight possible basic elementary quantifications. Is the conclusion in a compartment? | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 3.8) |
13421 | 'Disjunctive Normal Form' is ensuring that no conjunction has a disjunction within its scope [Bostock] |
Full Idea: 'Disjunctive Normal Form' (DNF) is rearranging the occurrences of ∧ and ∨ so that no conjunction sign has any disjunction in its scope. This is achieved by applying two of the distribution laws. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.6) |
13422 | 'Conjunctive Normal Form' is ensuring that no disjunction has a conjunction within its scope [Bostock] |
Full Idea: 'Conjunctive Normal Form' (CNF) is rearranging the occurrences of ∧ and ∨ so that no disjunction sign has any conjunction in its scope. This is achieved by applying two of the distribution laws. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.6) |
13355 | 'Disjunction' says that Γ,φ∨ψ|= iff Γ,φ|= and Γ,ψ|= [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Principle of Disjunction says that Γ,φ∨ψ |= iff Γ,φ |= and Γ,ψ |=. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.5.G) | |
A reaction: That is, a disjunction leads to a contradiction if they each separately lead to contradictions. |
13350 | 'Assumptions' says that a formula entails itself (φ|=φ) [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Principle of Assumptions says that any formula entails itself, i.e. φ |= φ. The principle depends just upon the fact that no interpretation assigns both T and F to the same formula. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.5.A) | |
A reaction: Thus one can introduce φ |= φ into any proof, and then use it to build more complex sequents needed to attain a particular target formula. Bostock's principle is more general than anything in Lemmon. |
13351 | 'Thinning' allows that if premisses entail a conclusion, then adding further premisses makes no difference [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Principle of Thinning says that if a set of premisses entails a conclusion, then adding further premisses will still entail the conclusion. It is 'thinning' because it makes a weaker claim. If γ|=φ then γ,ψ|= φ. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.5.B) | |
A reaction: It is also called 'premise-packing'. It is the characteristic of a 'monotonic' logic - where once something is proved, it stays proved, whatever else is introduced. |
13356 | The 'conditional' is that Γ|=φ→ψ iff Γ,φ|=ψ [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Conditional Principle says that Γ |= φ→ψ iff Γ,φ |= ψ. With the addition of negation, this implies φ,φ→ψ |= ψ, which is 'modus ponens'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.5.H) | |
A reaction: [Second half is in Ex. 2.5.4] |
13352 | 'Cutting' allows that if x is proved, and adding y then proves z, you can go straight to z [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Principle of Cutting is the general point that entailment is transitive, extending this to cover entailments with more than one premiss. Thus if γ |= φ and φ,Δ |= ψ then γ,Δ |= ψ. Here φ has been 'cut out'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.5.C) | |
A reaction: It might be called the Principle of Shortcutting, since you can get straight to the last conclusion, eliminating the intermediate step. |
13353 | 'Negation' says that Γ,¬φ|= iff Γ|=φ [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Principle of Negation says that Γ,¬φ |= iff Γ |= φ. We also say that φ,¬φ |=, and hence by 'thinning on the right' that φ,¬φ |= ψ, which is 'ex falso quodlibet'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.5.E) | |
A reaction: That is, roughly, if the formula gives consistency, the negation gives contradiction. 'Ex falso' says that anything will follow from a contradiction. |
13354 | 'Conjunction' says that Γ|=φ∧ψ iff Γ|=φ and Γ|=ψ [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Principle of Conjunction says that Γ |= φ∧ψ iff Γ |= φ and Γ |= ψ. This implies φ,ψ |= φ∧ψ, which is ∧-introduction. It is also implies ∧-elimination. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.5.F) | |
A reaction: [Second half is Ex. 2.5.3] That is, if they are entailed separately, they are entailed as a unit. It is a moot point whether these principles are theorems of propositional logic, or derivation rules. |
13610 | A logic with ¬ and → needs three axiom-schemas and one rule as foundation [Bostock] |
Full Idea: For ¬,→ Schemas: (A1) |-φ→(ψ→φ), (A2) |-(φ→(ψ→ξ)) → ((φ→ψ)→(φ→ξ)), (A3) |-(¬φ→¬ψ) → (ψ→φ), Rule:DET:|-φ,|-φ→ψ then |-ψ | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.2) | |
A reaction: A1 says everything implies a truth, A2 is conditional proof, and A3 is contraposition. DET is modus ponens. This is Bostock's compact near-minimal axiom system for proposition logic. He adds two axioms and another rule for predicate logic. |
18122 | Classical interdefinitions of logical constants and quantifiers is impossible in intuitionism [Bostock] |
Full Idea: None of the classical ways of defining one logical constant in terms of others is available in intuitionist logic (and this includes the two quantifiers). | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 7.2) |
13846 | A 'free' logic can have empty names, and a 'universally free' logic can have empty domains [Bostock] |
Full Idea: A 'free' logic is one in which names are permitted to be empty. A 'universally free' logic is one in which the domain of an interpretation may also be empty. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.6) |
18114 | There is no single agreed structure for set theory [Bostock] |
Full Idea: There is so far no agreed set of axioms for set theory which is categorical, i.e. which does pick just one structure. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 6.4) | |
A reaction: This contrasts with Peano Arithmetic, which is categorical in its second-order version. |
18107 | A 'proper class' cannot be a member of anything [Bostock] |
Full Idea: A 'proper class' cannot be a member of anything, neither of a set nor of another proper class. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.4) |
18115 | We could add axioms to make sets either as small or as large as possible [Bostock] |
Full Idea: We could add the axiom that all sets are constructible (V = L), making the universe of sets as small as possible, or add the axiom that there is a supercompact cardinal (SC), making the universe as large as we no know how to. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 6.4) | |
A reaction: Bostock says most mathematicians reject the first option, and are undecided about the second option. |
18139 | The Axiom of Choice relies on reference to sets that we are unable to describe [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The usual accounts of ZF are not restricted to subsets that we can describe, and that is what justifies the axiom of choice. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.4 n36) | |
A reaction: This contrasts interestingly with predicativism, which says we can only discuss things which we can describe or define. Something like verificationism hovers in the background. |
18105 | Replacement enforces a 'limitation of size' test for the existence of sets [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Axiom of Replacement (or the Axiom of Subsets, 'Aussonderung', Fraenkel 1922) in effect enforces the idea that 'limitation of size' is a crucial factor when deciding whether a proposed set or does not not exist. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.4) |
18108 | First-order logic is not decidable: there is no test of whether any formula is valid [Bostock] |
Full Idea: First-order logic is not decidable. That is, there is no test which can be applied to any arbitrary formula of that logic and which will tell one whether the formula is or is not valid (as proved by Church in 1936). | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.5) |
18109 | The completeness of first-order logic implies its compactness [Bostock] |
Full Idea: From the fact that the usual rules for first-level logic are complete (as proved by Gödel 1930), it follows that this logic is 'compact'. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.5) | |
A reaction: The point is that the completeness requires finite proofs. |
13346 | Truth is the basic notion in classical logic [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The most fundamental notion in classical logic is that of truth. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 1.1) | |
A reaction: The opening sentence of his book. Hence the first half of the book is about semantics, and only the second half deals with proof. Compare Idea 10282. The thought seems to be that you could leave out truth, but that makes logic pointless. |
13545 | Elementary logic cannot distinguish clearly between the finite and the infinite [Bostock] |
Full Idea: In very general terms, we cannot express the distinction between what is finite and what is infinite without moving essentially beyond the resources available in elementary logic. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 4.8) | |
A reaction: This observation concludes a discussion of Compactness in logic. |
13822 | Fictional characters wreck elementary logic, as they have contradictions and no excluded middle [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Discourse about fictional characters leads to a breakdown of elementary logic. We accept P or ¬P if the relevant story says so, but P∨¬P will not be true if the relevant story says nothing either way, and P∧¬P is true if the story is inconsistent. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.5) | |
A reaction: I really like this. Does one need to invent a completely new logic for fictional characters? Or must their logic be intuitionist, or paraconsistent, or both? |
13623 | The syntactic turnstile |- φ means 'there is a proof of φ' or 'φ is a theorem' [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The syntactic turnstile |- φ means 'There is a proof of φ' (in the system currently being considered). Another way of saying the same thing is 'φ is a theorem'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.1) |
13347 | Validity is a conclusion following for premises, even if there is no proof [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The classical definition of validity counts an argument as valid if and only if the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, whether or not the argument contains any demonstration of this fact. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 1.2) | |
A reaction: Hence validity is given by |= rather than by |-. A common example is 'it is red so it is coloured', which seems true but beyond proof. In the absence of formal proof, you wonder whether validity is merely a psychological notion. |
13348 | It seems more natural to express |= as 'therefore', rather than 'entails' [Bostock] |
Full Idea: In practice we avoid quotation marks and explicitly set-theoretic notation that explaining |= as 'entails' appears to demand. Hence it seems more natural to explain |= as simply representing the word 'therefore'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 1.3) | |
A reaction: Not sure I quite understand that, but I have trained myself to say 'therefore' for the generic use of |=. In other consequences it seems better to read it as 'semantic consequence', to distinguish it from |-. |
13349 | Γ|=φ is 'entails'; Γ|= is 'is inconsistent'; |=φ is 'valid' [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If we write Γ |= φ, with one formula to the right, then the turnstile abbreviates 'entails'. For a sequent of the form Γ |= it can be read as 'is inconsistent'. For |= φ we read it as 'valid'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 1.3) |
13614 | MPP: 'If Γ|=φ and Γ|=φ→ψ then Γ|=ψ' (omit Γs for Detachment) [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Rule of Detachment is a version of Modus Ponens, and says 'If |=φ and |=φ→ψ then |=ψ'. This has no assumptions. Modus Ponens is the more general rule that 'If Γ|=φ and Γ|=φ→ψ then Γ|=ψ'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.3) | |
A reaction: Modus Ponens is actually designed for use in proof based on assumptions (which isn't always the case). In Detachment the formulae are just valid, without dependence on assumptions to support them. |
13617 | MPP is a converse of Deduction: If Γ |- φ→ψ then Γ,φ|-ψ [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Modus Ponens is equivalent to the converse of the Deduction Theorem, namely 'If Γ |- φ→ψ then Γ,φ|-ψ'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.3) | |
A reaction: See 13615 for details of the Deduction Theorem. See 13614 for Modus Ponens. |
13799 | The sign '=' is a two-place predicate expressing that 'a is the same thing as b' (a=b) [Bostock] |
Full Idea: We shall use 'a=b' as short for 'a is the same thing as b'. The sign '=' thus expresses a particular two-place predicate. Officially we will use 'I' as the identity predicate, so that 'Iab' is as formula, but we normally 'abbreviate' this to 'a=b'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.1) |
13800 | |= α=α and α=β |= φ(α/ξ ↔ φ(β/ξ) fix identity [Bostock] |
Full Idea: We usually take these two principles together as the basic principles of identity: |= α=α and α=β |= φ(α/ξ) ↔ φ(β/ξ). The second (with scant regard for history) is known as Leibniz's Law. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.1) |
13803 | If we are to express that there at least two things, we need identity [Bostock] |
Full Idea: To say that there is at least one thing x such that Fx we need only use an existential quantifier, but to say that there are at least two things we need identity as well. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.1) | |
A reaction: The only clear account I've found of why logic may need to be 'with identity'. Without it, you can only reason about one thing or all things. Presumably plural quantification no longer requires '='? |
13357 | Truth-functors are usually held to be defined by their truth-tables [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The usual view of the meaning of truth-functors is that each is defined by its own truth-table, independently of any other truth-functor. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.7) |
13812 | A 'zero-place' function just has a single value, so it is a name [Bostock] |
Full Idea: We can talk of a 'zero-place' function, which is a new-fangled name for a familiar item; it just has a single value, and so it has the same role as a name. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.2) |
13811 | A 'total' function ranges over the whole domain, a 'partial' function over appropriate inputs [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Usually we allow that a function is defined for arguments of a suitable kind (a 'partial' function), but we can say that each function has one value for any object whatever, from the whole domain that our quantifiers range over (a 'total' function). | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.2) | |
A reaction: He points out (p.338) that 'the father of..' is a functional expression, but it wouldn't normally take stones as input, so seems to be a partial function. But then it doesn't even take all male humans either. It only takes fathers! |
13360 | In logic, a name is just any expression which refers to a particular single object [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The important thing about a name, for logical purposes, is that it is used to make a singular reference to a particular object; ..we say that any expression too may be counted as a name, for our purposes, it it too performs the same job. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 3.1) | |
A reaction: He cites definite descriptions as the most notoriously difficult case, in deciding whether or not they function as names. I takes it as pretty obvious that sometimes they do and sometimes they don't (in ordinary usage). |
13361 | An expression is only a name if it succeeds in referring to a real object [Bostock] |
Full Idea: An expression is not counted as a name unless it succeeds in referring to an object, i.e. unless there really is an object to which it refers. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 3.1) | |
A reaction: His 'i.e.' makes the existence condition sound sufficient, but in ordinary language you don't succeed in referring to 'that man over there' just because he exists. In modal contexts we presumably refer to hypothetical objects (pace Lewis). |
13814 | Definite desciptions resemble names, but can't actually be names, if they don't always refer [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Although a definite description looks like a complex name, and in many ways behaves like a name, still it cannot be a name if names must always refer to objects. Russell gave the first proposal for handling such expressions. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.3) | |
A reaction: I take the simple solution to be a pragmatic one, as roughly shown by Donnellan, that sometimes they are used exactly like names, and sometimes as something else. The same phrase can have both roles. Confusing for logicians. Tough. |
13816 | Because of scope problems, definite descriptions are best treated as quantifiers [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Because of the scope problem, it now seems better to 'parse' definition descriptions not as names but as quantifiers. 'The' is to be treated in the same category as acknowledged quantifiers like 'all' and 'some'. We write Ix - 'for the x such that..'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.3) | |
A reaction: This seems intuitively rather good, since quantification in normal speech is much more sophisticated than the crude quantification of classical logic. But the fact is that they often function as names (but see Idea 13817). |
13817 | Definite descriptions are usually treated like names, and are just like them if they uniquely refer [Bostock] |
Full Idea: In practice, definite descriptions are for the most part treated as names, since this is by far the most convenient notation (even though they have scope). ..When a description is uniquely satisfied then it does behave like a name. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.3) | |
A reaction: Apparent names themselves have problems when they wander away from uniquely picking out one thing, as in 'John Doe'. |
13848 | We are only obliged to treat definite descriptions as non-names if only the former have scope [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If it is really true that definite descriptions have scopes whereas names do not, then Russell must be right to claim that definite descriptions are not names. If, however, this is not true, then it does no harm to treat descriptions as complex names. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.8) |
13813 | Definite descriptions don't always pick out one thing, as in denials of existence, or errors [Bostock] |
Full Idea: It is natural to suppose one only uses a definite description when one believes it describes only one thing, but exceptions are 'there is no such thing as the greatest prime number', or saying something false where the reference doesn't occur. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.3) |
13815 | Names do not have scope problems (e.g. in placing negation), but Russell's account does have that problem [Bostock] |
Full Idea: In orthodox logic names are not regarded as having scope (for example, in where a negation is placed), whereas on Russell's theory definite descriptions certainly do. Russell had his own way of dealing with this. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.3) |
13438 | 'Prenex normal form' is all quantifiers at the beginning, out of the scope of truth-functors [Bostock] |
Full Idea: A formula is said to be in 'prenex normal form' (PNF) iff all its quantifiers occur in a block at the beginning, so that no quantifier is in the scope of any truth-functor. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 3.7) | |
A reaction: Bostock provides six equivalences which can be applied to manouevre any formula into prenex normal form. He proves that every formula can be arranged in PNF. |
13818 | If we allow empty domains, we must allow empty names [Bostock] |
Full Idea: We can show that if empty domains are permitted, then empty names must be permitted too. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.4) |
18123 | Substitutional quantification is just standard if all objects in the domain have a name [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Substitutional quantification and quantification understood in the usual 'ontological' way will coincide when every object in the (ontological) domain has a name. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 7.3 n23) |
13801 | An 'informal proof' is in no particular system, and uses obvious steps and some ordinary English [Bostock] |
Full Idea: An 'informal proof' is not in any particular proof system. One may use any rule of proof that is 'sufficiently obvious', and there is quite a lot of ordinary English in the proof, explaining what is going on at each step. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.1) |
13619 | Quantification adds two axiom-schemas and a new rule [Bostock] |
Full Idea: New axiom-schemas for quantifiers: (A4) |-∀ξφ → φ(α/ξ), (A5) |-∀ξ(ψ→φ) → (ψ→∀ξφ), plus the rule GEN: If |-φ the |-∀ξφ(ξ/α). | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.6) | |
A reaction: This follows on from Idea 13610, where he laid out his three axioms and one rule for propositional (truth-functional) logic. This Idea plus 13610 make Bostock's proposed axiomatisation of first-order logic. |
13622 | Axiom systems from Frege, Russell, Church, Lukasiewicz, Tarski, Nicod, Kleene, Quine... [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Notably axiomatisations of first-order logic are by Frege (1879), Russell and Whitehead (1910), Church (1956), Lukasiewicz and Tarski (1930), Lukasiewicz (1936), Nicod (1917), Kleene (1952) and Quine (1951). Also Bostock (1997). | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.8) | |
A reaction: My summary, from Bostock's appendix 5.8, which gives details of all of these nine systems. This nicely illustrates the status and nature of axiom systems, which have lost the absolute status they seemed to have in Euclid. |
13615 | 'Conditonalised' inferences point to the Deduction Theorem: If Γ,φ|-ψ then Γ|-φ→ψ [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If a group of formulae prove a conclusion, we can 'conditionalize' this into a chain of separate inferences, which leads to the Deduction Theorem (or Conditional Proof), that 'If Γ,φ|-ψ then Γ|-φ→ψ'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.3) | |
A reaction: This is the rule CP (Conditional Proof) which can be found in the rules for propositional logic I transcribed from Lemmon's book. |
13616 | The Deduction Theorem greatly simplifies the search for proof [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Use of the Deduction Theorem greatly simplifies the search for proof (or more strictly, the task of showing that there is a proof). | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.3) | |
A reaction: See 13615 for details of the Deduction Theorem. Bostock is referring to axiomatic proof, where it can be quite hard to decide which axioms are relevant. The Deduction Theorem enables the making of assumptions. |
13620 | Proof by Assumptions can always be reduced to Proof by Axioms, using the Deduction Theorem [Bostock] |
Full Idea: By repeated transformations using the Deduction Theorem, any proof from assumptions can be transformed into a fully conditionalized proof, which is then an axiomatic proof. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.6) | |
A reaction: Since proof using assumptions is perhaps the most standard proof system (e.g. used in Lemmon, for many years the standard book at Oxford University), the Deduction Theorem is crucial for giving it solid foundations. |
13621 | The Deduction Theorem and Reductio can 'discharge' assumptions - they aren't needed for the new truth [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Like the Deduction Theorem, one form of Reductio ad Absurdum (If Γ,φ|-[absurdity] then Γ|-¬φ) 'discharges' an assumption. Assume φ and obtain a contradiction, then we know ¬&phi, without assuming φ. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.7) | |
A reaction: Thus proofs from assumption either arrive at conditional truths, or at truths that are true irrespective of what was initially assumed. |
13753 | Natural deduction takes proof from assumptions (with its rules) as basic, and axioms play no part [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Natural deduction takes the notion of proof from assumptions as a basic notion, ...so it will use rules for use in proofs from assumptions, and axioms (as traditionally understood) will have no role to play. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 6.1) | |
A reaction: The main rules are those for introduction and elimination of truth functors. |
13755 | Excluded middle is an introduction rule for negation, and ex falso quodlibet will eliminate it [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Many books take RAA (reductio) and DNE (double neg) as the natural deduction introduction- and elimination-rules for negation, but RAA is not a natural introduction rule. I prefer TND (tertium) and EFQ (ex falso) for ¬-introduction and -elimination. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 6.2) |
13758 | In natural deduction we work from the premisses and the conclusion, hoping to meet in the middle [Bostock] |
Full Idea: When looking for a proof of a sequent, the best we can do in natural deduction is to work simultaneously in both directions, forward from the premisses, and back from the conclusion, and hope they will meet in the middle. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 6.5) |
13754 | Natural deduction rules for → are the Deduction Theorem (→I) and Modus Ponens (→E) [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Natural deduction adopts for → as rules the Deduction Theorem and Modus Ponens, here called →I and →E. If ψ follows φ in the proof, we can write φ→ψ (→I). φ and φ→ψ permit ψ (→E). | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 6.2) | |
A reaction: Natural deduction has this neat and appealing way of formally introducing or eliminating each connective, so that you know where you are, and you know what each one means. |
18120 | The Deduction Theorem is what licenses a system of natural deduction [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Deduction Theorem is what licenses a system of 'natural deduction' in the first place. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 7.2) |
13756 | A tree proof becomes too broad if its only rule is Modus Ponens [Bostock] |
Full Idea: When the only rule of inference is Modus Ponens, the branches of a tree proof soon spread too wide for comfort. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 6.4) |
13762 | Tableau rules are all elimination rules, gradually shortening formulae [Bostock] |
Full Idea: In their original setting, all the tableau rules are elimination rules, allowing us to replace a longer formula by its shorter components. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 7.3) |
13757 | Unlike natural deduction, semantic tableaux have recipes for proving things [Bostock] |
Full Idea: With semantic tableaux there are recipes for proof-construction that we can operate, whereas with natural deduction there are not. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 6.5) |
13611 | Tableau proofs use reduction - seeking an impossible consequence from an assumption [Bostock] |
Full Idea: A tableau proof is a proof by reduction ad absurdum. One begins with an assumption, and one develops the consequences of that assumption, seeking to derive an impossible consequence. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 4.1) |
13613 | A completed open branch gives an interpretation which verifies those formulae [Bostock] |
Full Idea: An open branch in a completed tableau will always yield an interpretation that verifies every formula on the branch. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 4.7) | |
A reaction: In other words the open branch shows a model which seems to work (on the available information). Similarly a closed branch gives a model which won't work - a counterexample. |
13612 | Non-branching rules add lines, and branching rules need a split; a branch with a contradiction is 'closed' [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Rules for semantic tableaus are of two kinds - non-branching rules and branching rules. The first allow the addition of further lines, and the second requires splitting the branch. A branch which assigns contradictory values to a formula is 'closed'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 4.1) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Thus 'and' stays on one branch, asserting both formulae, but 'or' splits, checking first one and then the other. A proof succeeds when all the branches are closed, showing that the initial assumption leads only to contradictions. |
13761 | In a tableau proof no sequence is established until the final branch is closed; hypotheses are explored [Bostock] |
Full Idea: In a tableau system no sequent is established until the final step of the proof, when the last branch closes, and until then we are simply exploring a hypothesis. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 7.3) | |
A reaction: This compares sharply with a sequence calculus, where every single step is a conclusive proof of something. So use tableaux for exploring proofs, and then sequence calculi for writing them up? |
13760 | A sequent calculus is good for comparing proof systems [Bostock] |
Full Idea: A sequent calculus is a useful tool for comparing two systems that at first look utterly different (such as natural deduction and semantic tableaux). | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 7.2) |
13759 | Each line of a sequent calculus is a conclusion of previous lines, each one explicitly recorded [Bostock] |
Full Idea: A sequent calculus keeps an explicit record of just what sequent is established at each point in a proof. Every line is itself the sequent proved at that point. It is not a linear sequence or array of formulae, but a matching array of whole sequents. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 7.1) |
13364 | Interpretation by assigning objects to names, or assigning them to variables first [Bostock, by PG] |
Full Idea: There are two approaches to an 'interpretation' of a logic: the first method assigns objects to names, and then defines connectives and quantifiers, focusing on truth; the second assigns objects to variables, then variables to names, using satisfaction. | |
From: report of David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 3.4) by PG - Db (lexicon) | |
A reaction: [a summary of nine elusive pages in Bostock] He says he prefers the first method, but the second method is more popular because it handles open formulas, by treating free variables as if they were names. |
13821 | Extensionality is built into ordinary logic semantics; names have objects, predicates have sets of objects [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Extensionality is built into the semantics of ordinary logic. When a name-letter is interpreted as denoting something, we just provide the object denoted. All that we provide for a one-place predicate-letter is the set of objects that it is true of.. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997]) | |
A reaction: Could we keep the syntax of ordinary logic, and provide a wildly different semantics, much closer to real life? We could give up these dreadful 'objects' that Frege lumbered us with. Logic for processes, etc. |
13362 | If an object has two names, truth is undisturbed if the names are swapped; this is Extensionality [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If two names refer to the same object, then in any proposition which contains either of them the other may be substituted in its place, and the truth-value of the proposition of the proposition will be unaltered. This is the Principle of Extensionality. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 3.1) | |
A reaction: He acknowledges that ordinary language is full of counterexamples, such as 'he doesn't know the Morning Star and the Evening Star are the same body' (when he presumably knows that the Morning Star is the Morning Star). This is logic. Like maths. |
13541 | For 'negation-consistent', there is never |-(S)φ and |-(S)¬φ [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Any system of proof S is said to be 'negation-consistent' iff there is no formula such that |-(S)φ and |-(S)¬φ. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 4.5) | |
A reaction: Compare Idea 13542. This version seems to be a 'strong' version, as it demands a higher standard than 'absolute consistency'. Both halves of the condition would have to be established. |
13542 | A proof-system is 'absolutely consistent' iff we don't have |-(S)φ for every formula [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Any system of proof S is said to be 'absolutely consistent' iff it is not the case that for every formula we have |-(S)φ. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 4.5) | |
A reaction: Bostock notes that a sound system will be both 'negation-consistent' (Idea 13541) and absolutely consistent. 'Tonk' systems can be shown to be unsound because the two come apart. |
13540 | A set of formulae is 'inconsistent' when there is no interpretation which can make them all true [Bostock] |
Full Idea: 'Γ |=' means 'Γ is a set of closed formulae, and there is no (standard) interpretation in which all of the formulae in Γ are true'. We abbreviate this last to 'Γ is inconsistent'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 4.5) | |
A reaction: This is a semantic approach to inconsistency, in terms of truth, as opposed to saying that we cannot prove both p and ¬p. I take this to be closer to the true concept, since you need never have heard of 'proof' to understand 'inconsistent'. |
13544 | Inconsistency or entailment just from functors and quantifiers is finitely based, if compact [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Being 'compact' means that if we have an inconsistency or an entailment which holds just because of the truth-functors and quantifiers involved, then it is always due to a finite number of the propositions in question. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 4.8) | |
A reaction: Bostock says this is surprising, given the examples 'a is not a parent of a parent of b...' etc, where an infinity seems to establish 'a is not an ancestor of b'. The point, though, is that this truth doesn't just depend on truth-functors and quantifiers. |
13618 | Compactness means an infinity of sequents on the left will add nothing new [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The logic of truth-functions is compact, which means that sequents with infinitely many formulae on the left introduce nothing new. Hence we can confine our attention to finite sequents. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 5.5) | |
A reaction: This makes it clear why compactness is a limitation in logic. If you want the logic to be unlimited in scope, it isn't; it only proves things from finite numbers of sequents. This makes it easier to prove completeness for the system. |
18125 | Berry's Paradox considers the meaning of 'The least number not named by this name' [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Berry's Paradox can be put in this form, by considering the alleged name 'The least number not named by this name'. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.1) |
18101 | Each addition changes the ordinality but not the cardinality, prior to aleph-1 [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If you add to the ordinals you produce many different ordinals, each measuring the length of the sequence of ordinals less than it. They each have cardinality aleph-0. The cardinality eventually increases, but we can't say where this break comes. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.5) |
18100 | ω + 1 is a new ordinal, but its cardinality is unchanged [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If we add ω onto the end of 0,1,2,3,4..., it then has a different length, of ω+1. It has a different ordinal (since it can't be matched with its first part), but the same cardinal (since adding 1 makes no difference). | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.5) | |
A reaction: [compressed] The ordinals and cardinals coincide up to ω, but this is the point at which they come apart. |
18102 | A cardinal is the earliest ordinal that has that number of predecessors [Bostock] |
Full Idea: It is the usual procedure these days to identify a cardinal number with the earliest ordinal number that has that number of predecessors. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.5) | |
A reaction: This sounds circular, since you need to know the cardinal in order to decide which ordinal is the one you want, but, hey, what do I know? |
18106 | Aleph-1 is the first ordinal that exceeds aleph-0 [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The cardinal aleph-1 is identified with the first ordinal to have more than aleph-0 members, and so on. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.4) | |
A reaction: That is, the succeeding infinite ordinals all have the same cardinal number of members (aleph-0), until the new total is triggered (at the number of the reals). This is Continuum Hypothesis territory. |
18095 | Instead of by cuts or series convergence, real numbers could be defined by axioms [Bostock] |
Full Idea: In addition to cuts, or converging series, Cantor suggests we can simply lay down a set of axioms for the real numbers, and this can be done without any explicit mention of the rational numbers [note: the axioms are those for a complete ordered field]. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.4) | |
A reaction: It is interesting when axioms are best, and when not. Set theory depends entirely on axioms. Horsten and Halbach are now exploring treating truth as axiomatic. You don't give the 'nature' of the thing - just rules for its operation. |
18099 | The number of reals is the number of subsets of the natural numbers [Bostock] |
Full Idea: It is not difficult to show that the number of the real numbers is the same as the number of all the subsets of the natural numbers. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.5) | |
A reaction: The Continuum Hypothesis is that this is the next infinite number after the number of natural numbers. Why can't there be a number which is 'most' of the subsets of the natural numbers? |
18093 | For Eudoxus cuts in rationals are unique, but not every cut makes a real number [Bostock] |
Full Idea: As Eudoxus claimed, two distinct real numbers cannot both make the same cut in the rationals, for any two real numbers must be separated by a rational number. He did not say, though, that for every such cut there is a real number that makes it. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.4) | |
A reaction: This is in Bostock's discussion of Dedekind's cuts. It seems that every cut is guaranteed to produce a real. Fine challenges the later assumption. |
18110 | Infinitesimals are not actually contradictory, because they can be non-standard real numbers [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Non-standard natural numbers will yield non-standard rational and real numbers. These will include reciprocals which will be closer to 0 than any standard real number. These are like 'infinitesimals', so that notion is not actually a contradiction. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.5) |
18156 | Modern axioms of geometry do not need the real numbers [Bostock] |
Full Idea: A modern axiomatisation of geometry, such as Hilbert's (1899), does not need to claim the existence of real numbers anywhere in its axioms. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.B.5.ii) | |
A reaction: This is despite the fact that geometry is reduced to algebra, and the real numbers are the equivalent of continuous lines. Bostock votes for a Greek theory of proportion in this role. |
18097 | The Peano Axioms describe a unique structure [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Peano Axioms are categorical, meaning that they describe a unique structure. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 4.4 n20) | |
A reaction: So if you think there is nothing more to the natural numbers than their structure, then the Peano Axioms give the essence of arithmetic. If you think that 'objects' must exist to generate a structure, there must be more to the numbers. |
13358 | Ordinary or mathematical induction assumes for the first, then always for the next, and hence for all [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The principle of mathematical (or ordinary) induction says suppose the first number, 0, has a property; suppose that if any number has that property, then so does the next; then it follows that all numbers have the property. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.8) | |
A reaction: Ordinary induction is also known as 'weak' induction. Compare Idea 13359 for 'strong' or complete induction. The number sequence must have a first element, so this doesn't work for the integers. |
13359 | Complete induction assumes for all numbers less than n, then also for n, and hence for all numbers [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The principle of complete induction says suppose that for every number, if all the numbers less than it have a property, then so does it; it then follows that every number has the property. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 2.8) | |
A reaction: Complete induction is also known as 'strong' induction. Compare Idea 13358 for 'weak' or mathematical induction. The number sequence need have no first element. |
18148 | Hume's Principle is a definition with existential claims, and won't explain numbers [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Hume's Principle will not do as an implicit definition because it makes a positive claim about the size of the universe (which no mere definition can do), and because it does not by itself explain what the numbers are. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
18145 | Many things will satisfy Hume's Principle, so there are many interpretations of it [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Hume's Principle gives a criterion of identity for numbers, but it is obvious that many other things satisfy that criterion. The simplest example is probably the numerals (in any notation, decimal, binary etc.), giving many different interpretations. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
18149 | There are many criteria for the identity of numbers [Bostock] |
Full Idea: There is not just one way of giving a criterion of identity for numbers. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
18143 | Frege makes numbers sets to solve the Caesar problem, but maybe Caesar is a set! [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The Julius Caesar problem was one reason that led Frege to give an explicit definition of numbers as special sets. He does not appear to notice that the same problem affects his Axiom V for introducing sets (whether Caesar is or is not a set). | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) | |
A reaction: The Julius Caesar problem is a sceptical acid that eats into everything in philosophy of mathematics. You give all sorts of wonderful accounts of numbers, but at what point do you know that you now have a number, and not something else? |
18116 | Numbers can't be positions, if nothing decides what position a given number has [Bostock] |
Full Idea: There is no ground for saying that a number IS a position, if the truth is that there is nothing to determine which number is which position. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 6.4) | |
A reaction: If numbers lose touch with the empirical ability to count physical objects, they drift off into a mad world where they crumble away. |
18117 | Structuralism falsely assumes relations to other numbers are numbers' only properties [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Structuralism begins from a false premise, namely that numbers have no properties other than their relations to other numbers. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 6.5) | |
A reaction: Well said. Describing anything purely relationally strikes me as doomed, because you have to say why those things relate in those ways. |
18141 | Nominalism about mathematics is either reductionist, or fictionalist [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Nominalism has two main versions, one which tries to 'reduce' the objects of mathematics to something simpler (Russell and Wittgenstein), and another which claims that such objects are mere 'fictions' which have no reality (Field). | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9) |
18157 | Nominalism as based on application of numbers is no good, because there are too many applications [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The style of nominalism which aims to reduce statements about numbers to statements about their applications does not work for the natural numbers, because they have many applications, and it is arbitrary to choose just one of them. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.B.5.iii) |
18150 | Actual measurement could never require the precision of the real numbers [Bostock] |
Full Idea: We all know that in practice no physical measurement can be 100 per cent accurate, and so it cannot require the existence of a genuinely irrational number, rather than some of the rational numbers close to it. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.3) |
18158 | Ordinals are mainly used adjectively, as in 'the first', 'the second'... [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The basic use of the ordinal numbers is their use as ordinal adjectives, in phrases such as 'the first', 'the second' and so on. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.5.iii) | |
A reaction: That is because ordinals seem to attach to particulars, whereas cardinals seem to attach to groups. Then you say 'three is greater than four', it is not clear which type you are talking about. |
18127 | Simple type theory has 'levels', but ramified type theory has 'orders' [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The simple theory of types distinguishes sets into different 'levels', but this is quite different from the distinction into 'orders' which is imposed by the ramified theory. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.1) | |
A reaction: The ramified theory has both levels and orders (p.235). Russell's terminology is, apparently, inconsistent. |
18144 | Neo-logicists agree that HP introduces number, but also claim that it suffices for the job [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The neo-logicists take up Frege's claim that Hume's Principle introduces a new concept (of a number), but unlike Frege they go on to claim that it by itself gives a complete account of that concept. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) | |
A reaction: So the big difference between Frege and neo-logicists is the Julius Caesar problem. |
18147 | Neo-logicists meet the Caesar problem by saying Hume's Principle is unique to number [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The response of neo-logicists to the Julius Caesar problem is to strengthen Hume's Principle in the hope of ensuring that only numbers will satisfy it. They say the criterion of identity provided by HP is essential to number, and not to anything else. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) |
18146 | If Hume's Principle is the whole story, that implies structuralism [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If Hume's Principle is all we are given, by way of explanation of what the numbers are, the only conclusion to draw would seem to be the structuralists' conclusion, ...studying all systems that satisfy that principle. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.A.2) | |
A reaction: Any approach that implies a set of matching interpretations will always imply structuralism. To avoid it, you need to pin the target down uniquely. |
18129 | Many crucial logicist definitions are in fact impredicative [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Many of the crucial definitions in the logicist programme are in fact impredicative. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.2) |
18111 | Treating numbers as objects doesn't seem like logic, since arithmetic fixes their totality [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If logic is neutral on the number of objects there are, then logicists can't construe numbers as objects, for arithmetic is certainly not neutral on the number of numbers there are. They must be treated in some other way, perhaps as numerical quantifiers. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 5.5) |
18159 | Higher cardinalities in sets are just fairy stories [Bostock] |
Full Idea: In its higher reaches, which posit sets of huge cardinalities, set theory is just a fairy story. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.5.iii) | |
A reaction: You can't say the higher reaches are fairy stories but the lower reaches aren't, if the higher is directly derived from the lower. The empty set and the singleton are fairy stories too. Bostock says the axiom of infinity triggers the fairy stories. |
18155 | A fairy tale may give predictions, but only a true theory can give explanations [Bostock] |
Full Idea: A common view is that although a fairy tale may provide very useful predictions, it cannot provide explanations for why things happen as they do. In order to do that a theory must also be true (or, at least, an approximation to the truth). | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 9.B.5) | |
A reaction: Of course, fictionalism offers an explanation of mathematics as a whole, but not of the details (except as the implications of the initial fictional assumptions). |
18140 | The best version of conceptualism is predicativism [Bostock] |
Full Idea: In my personal opinion, predicativism is the best version of conceptualism that we have yet discovered. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.4) | |
A reaction: Since conceptualism is a major player in the field, this makes predicativism a very important view. I won't vote Predicativist quite yet, but I'm tempted. |
18138 | Conceptualism fails to grasp mathematical properties, infinity, and objective truth values [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Three simple objections to conceptualism in mathematics are that we do not ascribe mathematical properties to our ideas, that our ideas are presumably finite, and we don't think mathematics lacks truthvalue before we thought of it. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.4) | |
A reaction: [compressed; Bostock refers back to his Ch 2] Plus Idea 18134. On the whole I sympathise with conceptualism, so I will not allow myself to be impressed by any of these objections. (So, what's actually wrong with them.....?). |
18131 | If abstracta only exist if they are expressible, there can only be denumerably many of them [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If an abstract object exists only when there is some suitable way of expressing it, then there are at most denumerably many abstract objects. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.2) | |
A reaction: Fine by me. What an odd view, to think there are uncountably many abstract objects in existence, only a countable portion of which will ever be expressed! [ah! most people agree with me, p.243-4] |
18134 | Predicativism makes theories of huge cardinals impossible [Bostock] |
Full Idea: Classical mathematicians say predicative mathematics omits areas of great interest, all concerning non-denumerable real numbers, such as claims about huge cardinals. There cannot be a predicative version of this theory. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) | |
A reaction: I'm not sure that anyone will really miss huge cardinals if they are prohibited, though cryptography seems to flirt with such things. Are we ever allowed to say that some entity conjured up by mathematicians is actually impossible? |
18135 | If mathematics rests on science, predicativism may be the best approach [Bostock] |
Full Idea: It has been claimed that only predicative mathematics has a justification through its usefulness to science (an empiricist approach). | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) | |
A reaction: [compressed. Quine is the obvious candidate] I suppose predicativism gives your theory roots, whereas impredicativism is playing an abstract game. |
18136 | If we can only think of what we can describe, predicativism may be implied [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If we accept the initial idea that we can think only of what we ourselves can describe, then something like the theory of predicativism quite naturally results | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) | |
A reaction: I hate the idea that we can only talk of what falls under a sortal, but 'what we can describe' is much more plausible. Whether or not you agree with this approach (I'm pondering it), this makes predicativism important. |
18133 | The usual definitions of identity and of natural numbers are impredicative [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The predicative approach cannot accept either the usual definition of identity or the usual definition of the natural numbers, for both of these definitions are impredicative. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) | |
A reaction: [Bostock 237-8 gives details] |
18132 | The predicativity restriction makes a difference with the real numbers [Bostock] |
Full Idea: It is with the real numbers that the restrictions imposed by predicativity begin to make a real difference. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 8.3) |
13543 | A relation is not reflexive, just because it is transitive and symmetrical [Bostock] |
Full Idea: It is easy to fall into the error of supposing that a relation which is both transitive and symmetrical must also be reflexive. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 4.7) | |
A reaction: Compare Idea 14430! Transivity will take you there, and symmetricality will get you back, but that doesn't entitle you to take the shortcut? |
13802 | Relations can be one-many (at most one on the left) or many-one (at most one on the right) [Bostock] |
Full Idea: A relation is 'one-many' if for anything on the right there is at most one on the left (∀xyz(Rxz∧Ryz→x=y), and is 'many-one' if for anything on the left there is at most one on the right (∀xyz(Rzx∧Rzy→x=y). | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.1) |
23708 | Humeans see properties as having no more essential features and relations than their distinctness [Friend/Kimpton-Nye, by PG] |
Full Idea: The Humean view says properties are 'quiddities', which individuates properties by nothing more than their distinctness from one another, so that dispositions are not essential to them, and there is no limit to possible property recombination. | |
From: report of Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.3.1) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: [my summary] All of this is implied by Hume, rather than stated. David Lewis supports this view. The theory of basic powers is the view's main opponent. This quidditist view is not found in physics, where a property's modal profile matters. |
23709 | Dispositions are what individuate properties, and they constitute their essence [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: Dispositions constitute the essences of properties, and hence the identity of a property is not primitive ('quidditism'), but is given in terms of its dispositional relations to other properties. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.3.1) | |
A reaction: I like the picture that powers are basic, giving rise to dispositions, which combine to produce qualitative and active properties. Powers are precise and relatively few, and properties are ill-defined and very numerous. Being 'influential', for example. |
23707 | Powers are properties which necessitate dispositions [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: In broad terms: powers are properties that necessitate dispositions. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.2) | |
A reaction: If powers are properties then they must be properties 'of' something, which then seems to be more fundamental than the powers. Maybe our concept of an electron helps, which seems to be a bundle of a few properties, but no one even asks 'of' what. |
23714 | Dispositional essentialism (unlike the grounding view) says only fundamental properties are powers [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: Dispositional essentialism yields the view that just fundamental properties and some evolved macro properties are powers. The grounding view, by contrast, seems to yield the result that all properties are powers. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.7) | |
A reaction: For the second view, Mumford (for example) claims that the sphericity of a ball is a power, but that seems to miss the whole motivation for the powers ontology, which offers a fairly fundamental explanation of laws and modality. |
23711 | A power is a property which consists entirely of dispositions [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: In the 'dispositional essentialist' account (the main view) …what it is to be a power is to be a property whose essence is exhaustively constituted by dispositions. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.4) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Sounds wrong to me. A very complex property (such as 'stormy' weather) could be nothing more than a large bundle of dispositions, but that wouldn't make it a 'power', which has to be simpler and more basic. |
23712 | Powers are qualitative properties which fully ground dispositions [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: In the 'grounding' view of powers …powers are qualitative, because their essence can be specified independently of any dispositions or relations, but they fully ground dispositions. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.4) | |
A reaction: [compressed] They give this as the rival view to dispositional essentialism. It may be a mistake to call a power a property (which needs to be 'of' something). Not sure how powers can be both fundamental and qualitative. Don't they also ground qualities? |
23698 | Dispositions have directed behaviour which occurs if triggered [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: The three platitudes about dispositions are that 1) they are directed towards some specific behaviour, 2) they can be triggered under specific conditions, and 3) their directedness is modal, meaning not 'when it is triggered' but 'it it were triggered'. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.1.1) | |
A reaction: [PG summary] This is the preliminary to an attempt at a precise formal analysis, covering a number of hypothetical problem cases. 3) is the counterfactual rather than material conditional. Seems accurate. |
23699 | 'Masked' dispositions fail to react because something intervenes [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: A disposition is 'masked' when it fails to manifest due to interference, such as a fragile vase packed in bubble wrap, or an antidote taken after some poison. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.2.1) | |
A reaction: [compressed] The easiest account of these would be to say that the stimulus or trigger of the disposition never completely occurs. Poisons are only disposed to kill when they are fully ingested. Bubble wrapped vases can't be properly struck. |
23700 | A disposition is 'altered' when the stimulus reverses the disposition [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: A disposition is subject to 'altering' when the stimulus of the disposition influences whether (and to what degree) an object has that disposition. Either a live wire goes dead when it is touched, or a dead wire has a sensor making it live when touched. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.2.2) | |
A reaction: The word 'fink' is used of such interference. Not much of a problem, I would say, because at the moment when the stimulus comes to do its job, there is no longer a disposition for it to trigger. No different from switching off a light. |
23701 | A disposition is 'mimicked' if a different cause produces that effect from that stimulus [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: A disposition is 'mimicked' by objects without that disposition which behave as though they do have it. Styrofoam plates are not fragile, but make a horrible sound when stressed, causing some annoyed person to break them. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.2.3) | |
A reaction: A rather strained example! It shouldn't be a problem if the same cause (stress) leads to the same effect (breaking), but by a different path which is not the same as fragility. A formal analysis must obviously cover this case. |
23702 | A 'trick' can look like a stimulus for a disposition which will happen without it [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: A 'trick' can behave like a disposition, as when someone says 'abracadabra' over a hot cup of coffee, stimulating it (?) to gradually cool down. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.2.4) | |
A reaction: This is like Humean constant conjunction which is obviously not a cause, such as night following day. Only a problem is this cup of coffee is seen in isolation from all other cups of coffee. Post hoc propter hoc does not apply to all stimuli! |
23703 | Some dispositions manifest themselves without a stimulus [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: Some dispositions, such as loquaciousness or irascibility, are disposed to manifest whether they are provoked to do so. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.3.3) | |
A reaction: We might surmise that such people have internal triggers that get them going, rather than overt ones. The Sun has a disposition to shine, without an external stimulus. The theory of powers says nature is active, rather than being disposed to activity. |
23704 | We could analyse dispositions as 'possibilities', with no mention of a stimulus [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: We might abandon the relational analysis of dispositions (as stimulus-effect), and just say a disposition is a 'possibility', which simply can manifest, however that manifestation comes about. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 2.3.5) | |
A reaction: [Compressed. He particularly cites Barbara Vetter] A mere 'possibility' seems to cover passive states as well as potentially active ones. A cushion can be dented, but I wouldn't say it was 'disposed' to dent. Radioactive decay is a disposition, though. |
13847 | If non-existent things are self-identical, they are just one thing - so call it the 'null object' [Bostock] |
Full Idea: If even non-existent things are still counted as self-identical, then all non-existent things must be counted as identical with one another, so there is at most one non-existent thing. We might arbitrarily choose zero, or invent 'the null object'. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.6) |
13820 | The idea that anything which can be proved is necessary has a problem with empty names [Bostock] |
Full Idea: The common Rule of Necessitation says that what can be proved is necessary, but this is incorrect if we do not permit empty names. The most straightforward answer is to modify elementary logic so that only necessary truths can be proved. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.4) |
23710 | Dispositionalism says modality is in the powers of this world, not outsourced to possible worlds [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: Dispositionalism does not 'outsource' modality to other possible worlds, it roots modality in the powers of concrete individuals in this world. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.3.3) | |
A reaction: Possible worlds are to abolish modality, by treating it as the non-modal facts of different worlds. I see the dispositional view as vastly superior, because the world is awash with vivid and undeniable potentialities, and one world is better ontology. |
20653 | Six reduction levels: groups, lives, cells, molecules, atoms, particles [Putnam/Oppenheim, by Watson] |
Full Idea: There are six 'reductive levels' in science: social groups, (multicellular) living things, cells, molecules, atoms, and elementary particles. | |
From: report of H.Putnam/P.Oppenheim (Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis [1958]) by Peter Watson - Convergence 10 'Intro' | |
A reaction: I have the impression that fields are seen as more fundamental that elementary particles. What is the status of the 'laws' that are supposed to govern these things? What is the status of space and time within this picture? |
13363 | A (modern) predicate is the result of leaving a gap for the name in a sentence [Bostock] |
Full Idea: A simple way of approaching the modern notion of a predicate is this: given any sentence which contains a name, the result of dropping that name and leaving a gap in its place is a predicate. Very different from predicates in Aristotle and Kant. | |
From: David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 3.2) | |
A reaction: This concept derives from Frege. To get to grips with contemporary philosophy you have to relearn all sorts of basic words like 'predicate' and 'object'. |
18121 | In logic a proposition means the same when it is and when it is not asserted [Bostock] |
Full Idea: In Modus Ponens where the first premise is 'P' and the second 'P→Q', in the first premise P is asserted but in the second it is not. Yet it must mean the same in both premises, or it would be guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. | |
From: David Bostock (Philosophy of Mathematics [2009], 7.2) | |
A reaction: This is Geach's thought (leading to an objection to expressivism in ethics, that P means the same even if it is not expressed). |
23706 | Hume's Dictum says no connections are necessary - so mass and spacetime warping could separate [Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
Full Idea: Hume's Dictum says there are no necessary connections between existences, …and also between the distinct properties that individuals instantiate. …It follows that an object's property of mass and its disposition to warp space-time could come apart. | |
From: Friend/Kimpton-Nye (Dispositions and Powers [2023], 3.2) | |
A reaction: [compressed] This nicely pinpoints the heart of the Humean view, to which scientific essentialists and fans of powers in nature object. The objectors include me. |