82 ideas
15357 | Philosophy is the most general intellectual discipline [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Philosophy is the most general intellectual discipline. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 05.1) | |
A reaction: Very simple, but exactly how I see the subject. It is continuous with the sciences, and tries to give an account of nature, but operating at an extreme level of generality. It must respect the findings of science, but offer bold interpretations. |
17774 | Definitions make our intuitions mathematically useful [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: Definition provides us with the means for converting our intuitions into mathematically usable concepts. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-1) |
15352 | A definition should allow the defined term to be eliminated [Horsten] |
Full Idea: A definition allows a defined term to be eliminated in every context in which it appears. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 04.2) | |
A reaction: To do that, a definition had better be incredibly comprehensive, so that no nice nuance of the original term is thrown out. |
10882 | Predicative definitions only refer to entities outside the defined collection [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Definitions are called 'predicative', and are considered sound, if they only refer to entities which exist independently from the defined collection. | |
From: Leon Horsten (Philosophy of Mathematics [2007], §2.4) |
17773 | Proof shows that it is true, but also why it must be true [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: When you have proved something you know not only that it is true, but why it must be true. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-2) | |
A reaction: Note the word 'must'. Presumably both the grounding and the necessitation of the truth are revealed. |
15324 | Semantic theories of truth seek models; axiomatic (syntactic) theories seek logical principles [Horsten] |
Full Idea: There are semantical theories of truth, concerned with models for languages containing the truth predicate, and axiomatic (or syntactic) theories, interested in basic logical principles governing the concept of truth. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 01.1) | |
A reaction: This is the map of contemporary debates, which seem now to have given up talking about 'correspondence', 'coherence' etc. |
15323 | Truth is a property, because the truth predicate has an extension [Horsten] |
Full Idea: I take truth to be a property because the truth predicate has an extension - the collection of all true sentences - and this collection does not (unlike the 'extension' of 'exists') consist of everything, or even of all sentences. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 01.1) | |
A reaction: He concedes that it may be an 'uninteresting' property. My problem is always that I am unconvinced that truth is tied to sentences. I can make perfect sense of animal thoughts being right or wrong. Extension of mental propositions? |
15374 | Truth has no 'nature', but we should try to describe its behaviour in inferences [Horsten] |
Full Idea: We should not aim at describing the nature of truth because there is no such thing. Rather, we should aim at describing the inferential behaviour of truth. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 10.2.3) |
15348 | Propositions have sentence-like structures, so it matters little which bears the truth [Horsten] |
Full Idea: It makes little difference, at least in extensional contexts, whether the truth bearers are propositions or sentences (or assertions). Even if the bearers are propositions rather than sentences, propositions are structured rather like sentences. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.4) | |
A reaction: The 'extensional' context means you are only talking about the things that are referred to, and not about the way this is expressed. I prefer propositions, but this is an interesting point. |
15333 | Modern correspondence is said to be with the facts, not with true propositions [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Modern correspondence theorists no longer take things to correspond to true propositions; they consider facts to be the truthmakers of propositions. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.1) | |
A reaction: If we then define facts as the way certain things are, independently from our thinking about it, at least we seem to be avoiding circularity. Not much point in correspondence accounts if you are not a robust realist (like me). [14,000th idea, 23/4/12!] |
15337 | The correspondence 'theory' is too vague - about both 'correspondence' and 'facts' [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The principle difficulty of the correspondence theory of truth is its vagueness. It is too vague to be called a theory until more information is given about what is meant by the terms 'correspondence' and 'fact'. Facts can involve a heavy ontology. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.1) | |
A reaction: I see nothing here to make me give up my commitment to the correspondence view of truth, though it sounds as if I will have to give up the word 'theory' in that context. Truth is so obviously about thought fitting reality that there is nothing to discuss. |
15334 | The coherence theory allows multiple coherent wholes, which could contradict one another [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The coherence theory seems too liberal. It seems there can be more than one systematic whole which, while being internally coherent, contradict each other, and thus cannot all be true. Coherence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for truth. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.1) | |
A reaction: This is a modern post-Tarski axiomatic truth theorist making very short work indeed of the coherence theory of truth. I take Horsten to be correct. |
15336 | The pragmatic theory of truth is relative; useful for group A can be useless for group B [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The pragmatic theory is unsatisfactory because usefulness is a relative notion. One theory can be useful to group A while being thoroughly impractical for group B. This would make the theory both truth and false. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.1) | |
A reaction: This objection, along with the obvious fact that certain falsehoods can be very useful, would seem to rule pragmatism out as a theory of truth. It is, in fact, an abandonment of truth. |
15354 | Tarski's hierarchy lacks uniform truth, and depends on contingent factors [Horsten] |
Full Idea: According to the Tarskian hierarchical conception, truth is not a uniform notion. ...Also Kripke has emphasised that the level of a token of the truth predicate can depend on contingent factors, such as what else has been said by a speaker. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 04.5) |
15340 | Tarski Bi-conditional: if you'll assert φ you'll assert φ-is-true - and also vice versa [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The axiom schema 'Sentence "phi;" is true iff φ' is the (unrestricted) Tarski-Biconditional, and is motivated by the thought that if you are willing to assume or outright assert that φ, you will assert that φ is true - and also vice versa. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.2) | |
A reaction: Very helpful! Most people are just bewildered by the Tarski bi-conditional ('"Snow is white"...), but this formulation nicely shows its minimal character while showing that it really does say something. It says what truths and truth-claims commit you to. |
15345 | Semantic theories have a regress problem in describing truth in the languages for the models [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Semantic theories give a class of models with a truth predicate, ...but Tarski taught us that this needs a more encompassing framework than its language...so how is the semantics of the framework expressed? The model route has a regress. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.3) | |
A reaction: [compressed] So this regress problem, of endless theories of truth going up the hierarchy, is Horsten's main reason for opting for axiomatic theories, which he then tries to strengthen, so that they are not quite so deflated. |
15373 | Axiomatic approaches avoid limiting definitions to avoid the truth predicate, and limited sizes of models [Horsten] |
Full Idea: An adequate definition of truth can only be given for the fragment of our language that does not contain the truth predicate. A model can never encompass the whole of the domain of discourse of our language. The axiomatic approach avoids these problems. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 10.1) |
15346 | Axiomatic approaches to truth avoid the regress problem of semantic theories [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The axiomatic approach to truth does not suffer from the regress problem. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.3) | |
A reaction: See Idea 15345 for the regress problem. The difficulty then seems to be that axiomatic approaches lack expressive power, so the hunt is on for a set of axioms which will do a decent job. Fun work, if you can cope with it. |
15371 | An axiomatic theory needs to be of maximal strength, while being natural and sound [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The challenge is to find the arithmetically strongest axiomatical truth theory that is both natural and truth-theoretically sound. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 07.7) |
15332 | 'Reflexive' truth theories allow iterations (it is T that it is T that p) [Horsten] |
Full Idea: A theory of truth is 'reflexive' if it allows us to prove truth-iterations ("It is true that it is true that so-and-so"). | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 01.4) |
15361 | A good theory of truth must be compositional (as well as deriving biconditionals) [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Deriving many Tarski-biconditionals is not a sufficient condition for being a good theory of truth. A good theory of truth must in addition do justice to the compositional nature of truth. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 06.1) |
15350 | The Naïve Theory takes the bi-conditionals as axioms, but it is inconsistent, and allows the Liar [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The Naïve Theory of Truth collects all the Tarski bi-conditionals of a language and takes them as axioms. But no consistent theory extending Peano arithmetic can prove all of them. It is inconsistent, and even formalises the liar paradox. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 03.5.2) | |
A reaction: [compressed] This looks to me like the account of truth that Davidson was working with, since he just seemed to be compiling bi-conditionals for tricky cases. (Wrong! He championed the Compositional Theory, Horsten p.71) |
15351 | Axiomatic theories take truth as primitive, and propose some laws of truth as axioms [Horsten] |
Full Idea: In the axiomatic approach we take the truth predicate to express an irreducible, primitive notion. The meaning of the truth predicate is partially explicated by proposing certain laws of truth as basic principles, as axioms. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 04.2) | |
A reaction: Judging by Horsten's book, this is a rather fruitful line of enquiry, but it still seems like a bit of a defeat to take truth as 'primitive'. Presumably you could add some vague notion of correspondence as the background picture. |
15367 | By adding truth to Peano Arithmetic we increase its power, so truth has mathematical content! [Horsten] |
Full Idea: It is surprising that just by adding to Peano Arithmetic principles concerning the notion of truth, we increase the mathematical strength of PA. So, contrary to expectations, the 'philosophical' notion of truth has real mathematical content. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 06.4) | |
A reaction: Horsten invites us to be really boggled by this. All of this is in the Compositional Theory TC. It enables a proof of the consistency of arithmetic (but still won't escape Gödel's Second). |
15330 | Friedman-Sheard theory keeps classical logic and aims for maximum strength [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The Friedman-Sheard theory of truth holds onto classical logic and tries to construct a theory that is as strong as possible. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 01.4) |
15331 | Kripke-Feferman has truth gaps, instead of classical logic, and aims for maximum strength [Horsten] |
Full Idea: If we abandon classical logic in favour of truth-value gaps and try to strengthen the theory, this leads to the Kripke-Feferman theory of truth, and variants of it. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 01.4) |
15325 | Inferential deflationism says truth has no essence because no unrestricted logic governs the concept [Horsten] |
Full Idea: According to 'inferential deflationism', truth is a concept without a nature or an essence. This is betrayed by the fact that there are no unrestricted logical laws that govern the concept of truth. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 01.1) |
15344 | Deflationism skips definitions and models, and offers just accounts of basic laws of truth [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Contemporary deflationism about truth does not attempt to define truth, and does not rely on models containing the truth predicate. Instead they are interpretations of axiomatic theories of truth, containing only basic laws of truth. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.3) |
15356 | Deflationism concerns the nature and role of truth, but not its laws [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Deflationism is not a theory of the laws of truth. It is a view on the nature and role of the concept of truth. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 05 Intro) |
15368 | This deflationary account says truth has a role in generality, and in inference [Horsten] |
Full Idea: On the conception of deflationism developed in this book, the prime positive role of the truth predicate is to serve as a device for expressing generalities, and an inferential tool. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 07.5) |
15358 | Deflationism says truth isn't a topic on its own - it just concerns what is true [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Deflationism says the theory of truth does not have a substantial domain of its own. The domain of the theory of truth consists of the bearers of truth. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 05.1) | |
A reaction: The immediate thought is that truth also concerns falsehoods, which would be inexplicable without it. If physics just concerns the physical, does that mean that physics lacks its own 'domain'? Generalising about the truths is a topic. |
15359 | Deflation: instead of asserting a sentence, we can treat it as an object with the truth-property [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The Deflationary view just says that instead of asserting a sentence, we can turn the sentence into an object and assert that this object has the property of truth. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 05.2.2) | |
A reaction: That seems to leave a big question hanging, which concerns the nature of the property that is being attributed to this object. Quine 1970:10-13 says it is just a 'device'. Surely you can rest content with that as an account of truth? |
15329 | Nonclassical may accept T/F but deny applicability, or it may deny just T or F as well [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Some nonclassical logic stays close to classical, assuming two mutually exclusive truth values T and F, but some sentences fail to have one. Others have further truth values such as 'half truth', or dialethists allow some T and F at the same time. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 01.2) | |
A reaction: I take that to say that the first lot accept bivalence but reject excluded middle (allowing 'truth value gaps'), while the second lot reject both. Bivalence gives the values available, and excluded middle says what has them. |
17795 | Set theory can't be axiomatic, because it is needed to express the very notion of axiomatisation [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: Set theory cannot be an axiomatic theory, because the very notion of an axiomatic theory makes no sense without it. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.413-2) | |
A reaction: This will come as a surprise to Penelope Maddy, who battles with ways to accept the set theory axioms as the foundation of mathematics. Mayberry says that the basic set theory required is much more simple and intuitive. |
17796 | There is a semi-categorical axiomatisation of set-theory [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: We can give a semi-categorical axiomatisation of set-theory (all that remains undetermined is the size of the set of urelements and the length of the sequence of ordinals). The system is second-order in formalisation. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.413-2) | |
A reaction: I gather this means the models may not be isomorphic to one another (because they differ in size), but can be shown to isomorphic to some third ingredient. I think. Mayberry says this shows there is no such thing as non-Cantorian set theory. |
17800 | The misnamed Axiom of Infinity says the natural numbers are finite in size [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The (misnamed!) Axiom of Infinity expresses Cantor's fundamental assumption that the species of natural numbers is finite in size. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.414-2) |
17801 | The set hierarchy doesn't rely on the dubious notion of 'generating' them [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The idea of 'generating' sets is only a metaphor - the existence of the hierarchy is established without appealing to such dubious notions. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.414-2) | |
A reaction: Presumably there can be a 'dependence' or 'determination' relation which does not involve actual generation. |
17803 | Limitation of size is part of the very conception of a set [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: Our very notion of a set is that of an extensional plurality limited in size. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.415-2) |
17786 | The mainstream of modern logic sees it as a branch of mathematics [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: In the mainstream tradition of modern logic, beginning with Boole, Peirce and Schröder, descending through Löwenheim and Skolem to reach maturity with Tarski and his school ...saw logic as a branch of mathematics. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.410-1) | |
A reaction: [The lesser tradition, of Frege and Russell, says mathematics is a branch of logic]. Mayberry says the Fregean tradition 'has almost died out'. |
17788 | First-order logic only has its main theorems because it is so weak [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: First-order logic is very weak, but therein lies its strength. Its principle tools (Compactness, Completeness, Löwenheim-Skolem Theorems) can be established only because it is too weak to axiomatize either arithmetic or analysis. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.411-2) | |
A reaction: He adds the proviso that this is 'unless we are dealing with structures on whose size we have placed an explicit, finite bound' (p.412-1). |
15326 | Doubt is thrown on classical logic by the way it so easily produces the liar paradox [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Aside from logic, so little is needed to generate the liar paradox that one wonders whether the laws of classical logic are unrestrictedly valid after all. (Many theories of truth have therefore been formulated in nonclassical logic.) | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 01.2) | |
A reaction: Kripke uses Strong Kleene logic for his theory. The implication is that debates discussed by Horsten actually have the status of classical logic at stake, as well as the nature of truth. |
17791 | Only second-order logic can capture mathematical structure up to isomorphism [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: Second-order logic is a powerful tool of definition: by means of it alone we can capture mathematical structure up to isomorphism using simple axiom systems. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) |
15341 | Deduction Theorem: ψ only derivable from φ iff φ→ψ are axioms [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The Deduction Theorem says ψ is derivable in classical predicate logic from ψ iff the sentence φ→ψ is a theorem of classical logic. Hence inferring φ to ψ is truth-preserving iff the axiom scheme φ→ψ is provable. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.2) | |
A reaction: Horsten offers this to show that the Tarski bi-conditionals can themselves be justified, and not just the rule of inference involved. Apparently you can only derive something if you first announce that you have the ability to derive it. Odd. |
15328 | A theory is 'non-conservative' if it facilitates new mathematical proofs [Horsten] |
Full Idea: A theory is 'non-conservative' if it allows us to prove mathematical facts that go beyond what the background mathematical theory can prove on its own. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 01.4) | |
A reaction: This is an instance of the relationship with mathematics being used as the test case for explorations of logic. It is a standard research method, because it is so precise, but should not be mistaken for the last word about a theory. |
17787 | Big logic has one fixed domain, but standard logic has a domain for each interpretation [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The 'logica magna' [of the Fregean tradition] has quantifiers ranging over a fixed domain, namely everything there is. In the Boolean tradition the domains differ from interpretation to interpretation. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.410-2) | |
A reaction: Modal logic displays both approaches, with different systems for global and local domains. |
15349 | It is easier to imagine truth-value gaps (for the Liar, say) than for truth-value gluts (both T and F) [Horsten] |
Full Idea: It is easier to imagine what it is like for a sentence to lack a truth value than what it is like for a sentence to be both truth and false. So I am grudgingly willing to entertain the possibility that certain sentences (like the Liar) lack a truth value. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.5) | |
A reaction: Fans of truth value gluts are dialethists like Graham Priest. I'm with Horsten on this one. But in what way can a sentence be meaningful if it lacks a truth-value? He mentions unfulfilled presuppositions and indicative conditionals as gappy. |
15366 | Satisfaction is a primitive notion, and very liable to semantical paradoxes [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Satisfaction is a more primitive notion than truth, and it is even more susceptible to semantical paradoxes than the truth predicate. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 06.3) | |
A reaction: The Liar is the best known paradox here. Tarski bases his account of truth on this primitive notion, so Horsten is pointing out the difficulties. |
10884 | A theory is 'categorical' if it has just one model up to isomorphism [Horsten] |
Full Idea: If a theory has, up to isomorphism, exactly one model, then it is said to be 'categorical'. | |
From: Leon Horsten (Philosophy of Mathematics [2007], §5.2) |
17790 | No Löwenheim-Skolem logic can axiomatise real analysis [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: No logic which can axiomatize real analysis can have the Löwenheim-Skolem property. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) |
17779 | 'Classificatory' axioms aim at revealing similarity in morphology of structures [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The purpose of a 'classificatory' axiomatic theory is to single out an otherwise disparate species of structures by fixing certain features of morphology. ...The aim is to single out common features. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.406-2) |
17778 | Axiomatiation relies on isomorphic structures being essentially the same [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The central dogma of the axiomatic method is this: isomorphic structures are mathematically indistinguishable in their essential properties. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.406-2) | |
A reaction: Hence it is not that we have to settle for the success of a system 'up to isomorphism', since that was the original aim. The structures must differ in their non-essential properties, or they would be the same system. |
17780 | 'Eliminatory' axioms get rid of traditional ideal and abstract objects [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The purpose of what I am calling 'eliminatory' axiomatic theories is precisely to eliminate from mathematics those peculiar ideal and abstract objects that, on the traditional view, constitute its subject matter. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.407-1) | |
A reaction: A very interesting idea. I have a natural antipathy to 'abstract objects', because they really mess up what could otherwise be a very tidy ontology. What he describes might be better called 'ignoring' axioms. The objects may 'exist', but who cares? |
15353 | The first incompleteness theorem means that consistency does not entail soundness [Horsten] |
Full Idea: It is a lesson of the first incompleteness theorem that consistency does not entail soundness. If we add the negation of the gödel sentence for PA as an extra axiom to PA, the result is consistent. This negation is false, so the theory is unsound. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 04.3) |
17789 | No logic which can axiomatise arithmetic can be compact or complete [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: No logic which can axiomatise arithmetic can be compact or complete. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) | |
A reaction: I take this to be because there are new truths in the transfinite level (as well as the problem of incompleteness). |
15355 | Strengthened Liar: 'this sentence is not true in any context' - in no context can this be evaluated [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The Strengthened Liar sentence says 'this sentence is not true in any context'. It is not hard to figure out that there is no context in which the sentence can be coherently evaluated. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 04.6) |
17784 | Real numbers can be eliminated, by axiom systems for complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: We eliminate the real numbers by giving an axiomatic definition of the species of complete ordered fields. These axioms are categorical (mutually isomorphic), and thus are mathematically indistinguishable. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.408-2) | |
A reaction: Hence my clever mathematical friend says that it is a terrible misunderstanding to think that mathematics is about numbers. Mayberry says the reals are one ordered field, but mathematics now studies all ordered fields together. |
15364 | English expressions are denumerably infinite, but reals are nondenumerable, so many are unnameable [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The number of English expressions is denumerably infinite. But Cantor's theorem can be used to show that there are nondenumerably many real numbers. So not every real number has a (simple or complex name in English). | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 06.3) | |
A reaction: This really bothers me. Are we supposed to be committed to the existence of entities which are beyond our powers of naming? How precise must naming be? If I say 'pick a random real number', might that potentially name all of them? |
17782 | Greek quantities were concrete, and ratio and proportion were their science [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: Quantities for Greeks were concrete things - lines, surfaces, solids, times, weights. At the centre of their science of quantity was the beautiful theory of ratio and proportion (...in which the notion of number does not appear!). | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.407-2) | |
A reaction: [He credits Eudoxus, and cites Book V of Euclid] |
17781 | Real numbers were invented, as objects, to simplify and generalise 'quantity' [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The abstract objects of modern mathematics, the real numbers, were invented by the mathematicians of the seventeenth century in order to simplify and to generalize the Greek science of quantity. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.407-2) |
17799 | Cantor's infinite is an absolute, of all the sets or all the ordinal numbers [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: In Cantor's new vision, the infinite, the genuine infinite, does not disappear, but presents itself in the guise of the absolute, as manifested in the species of all sets or the species of all ordinal numbers. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.414-2) |
17797 | Cantor extended the finite (rather than 'taming the infinite') [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: We may describe Cantor's achievement by saying, not that he tamed the infinite, but that he extended the finite. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.414-2) |
17775 | If proof and definition are central, then mathematics needs and possesses foundations [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: If we grant, as surely we must, the central importance of proof and definition, then we must also grant that mathematics not only needs, but in fact has, foundations. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-1) |
17776 | The ultimate principles and concepts of mathematics are presumed, or grasped directly [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The ultimate principles upon which mathematics rests are those to which mathematicians appeal without proof; and the primitive concepts of mathematics ...themselves are grasped directly, if grasped at all, without the mediation of definition. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-1) | |
A reaction: This begs the question of whether the 'grasping' is purely a priori, or whether it derives from experience. I defend the latter, and Jenkins puts the case well. |
17777 | Foundations need concepts, definition rules, premises, and proof rules [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: An account of the foundations of mathematics must specify four things: the primitive concepts for use in definitions, the rules governing definitions, the ultimate premises of proofs, and rules allowing advance from premises to conclusions. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-2) |
17804 | Axiom theories can't give foundations for mathematics - that's using axioms to explain axioms [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: No axiomatic theory, formal or informal, of first or of higher order can logically play a foundational role in mathematics. ...It is obvious that you cannot use the axiomatic method to explain what the axiomatic method is. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.415-2) |
10885 | Computer proofs don't provide explanations [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Mathematicians are uncomfortable with computerised proofs because a 'good' proof should do more than convince us that a certain statement is true. It should also explain why the statement in question holds. | |
From: Leon Horsten (Philosophy of Mathematics [2007], §5.3) |
17792 | 1st-order PA is only interesting because of results which use 2nd-order PA [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The sole theoretical interest of first-order Peano arithmetic derives from the fact that it is a first-order reduct of a categorical second-order theory. Its axioms can be proved incomplete only because the second-order theory is categorical. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) |
17793 | It is only 2nd-order isomorphism which suggested first-order PA completeness [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: If we did not know that the second-order axioms characterise the natural numbers up to isomorphism, we should have no reason to suppose, a priori, that first-order Peano Arithmetic should be complete. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) |
10881 | The concept of 'ordinal number' is set-theoretic, not arithmetical [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The notion of an ordinal number is a set-theoretic, and hence non-arithmetical, concept. | |
From: Leon Horsten (Philosophy of Mathematics [2007], §2.3) |
17794 | Set theory is not just first-order ZF, because that is inadequate for mathematics [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The idea that set theory must simply be identified with first-order Zermelo-Fraenkel is surprisingly widespread. ...The first-order axiomatic theory of sets is clearly inadequate as a foundation of mathematics. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-2) | |
A reaction: [He is agreeing with a quotation from Skolem]. |
17802 | We don't translate mathematics into set theory, because it comes embodied in that way [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: One does not have to translate 'ordinary' mathematics into the Zermelo-Fraenkel system: ordinary mathematics comes embodied in that system. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.415-1) | |
A reaction: Mayberry seems to be a particular fan of set theory as spelling out the underlying facts of mathematics, though it has to be second-order. |
17805 | Set theory is not just another axiomatised part of mathematics [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The fons et origo of all confusion is the view that set theory is just another axiomatic theory and the universe of sets just another mathematical structure. ...The universe of sets ...is the world that all mathematical structures inhabit. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.416-1) |
15360 | ZFC showed that the concept of set is mathematical, not logical, because of its existence claims [Horsten] |
Full Idea: One of the strengths of ZFC is that it shows that the concept of set is a mathematical concept. Many originally took it to be a logical concept. But ZFC makes mind-boggling existence claims, which should not follow if it was a logical concept. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 05.2.3) | |
A reaction: This suggests that set theory is not just a way of expressing mathematics (see Benacerraf 1965), but that some aspect of mathematics has been revealed by it - maybe even its essential nature. |
15369 | Set theory is substantial over first-order arithmetic, because it enables new proofs [Horsten] |
Full Idea: The nonconservativeness of set theory over first-order arithmetic has done much to establish set theory as a substantial theory indeed. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 07.5) | |
A reaction: Horsten goes on to point out the price paid, which is the whole new ontology which has to be added to the arithmetic. Who cares? It's all fictions anyway! |
15370 | Predicativism says mathematical definitions must not include the thing being defined [Horsten] |
Full Idea: Predicativism has it that a mathematical object (such as a set of numbers) cannot be defined by quantifying over a collection that includes that same mathematical object. To do so would be a violation of the vicious circle principle. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 07.7) | |
A reaction: In other words, when you define an object you are obliged to predicate something new, and not just recycle the stuff you already have. |
15338 | We may believe in atomic facts, but surely not complex disjunctive ones? [Horsten] |
Full Idea: While positive and perhaps even negative atomic facts may be unproblematic, it seems excessive to commit oneself to the existence of logically complex facts such as disjunctive facts. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.1) | |
A reaction: Presumably it is hard to deny that very complex statements involving massive disjunctions can be true or false. But why does commitment to real facts have to involve a huge ontology? The ontology is just the ingredients of the fact, isn't it? |
15363 | In the supervaluationist account, disjunctions are not determined by their disjuncts [Horsten] |
Full Idea: If 'Britain is large' and 'Italy is large' lack truth values, then so must 'Britain or Italy is large' - so on the supervaluationist account the truth value of a disjunction is not determined by the truth values of its disjuncts. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 06.2) | |
A reaction: Compare Idea 15362 to get the full picture here. |
15362 | If 'Italy is large' lacks truth, so must 'Italy is not large'; but classical logic says it's large or it isn't [Horsten] |
Full Idea: If 'Italy is a large country' lacks a truth value, then so too, presumably, does 'Italy is not a large country'. But 'Italy is or is not a large country' is true, on the supervaluationist account, because it is a truth of classical propositional logic. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 06.2) | |
A reaction: See also Idea 15363. He cites Fine 1975. |
17785 | Real numbers as abstracted objects are now treated as complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
Full Idea: The abstractness of the old fashioned real numbers has been replaced by generality in the modern theory of complete ordered fields. | |
From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.408-2) | |
A reaction: In philosophy, I'm increasingly thinking that we should talk much more of 'generality', and a great deal less about 'universals'. (By which I don't mean that redness is just the set of red things). |
15372 | Some claim that indicative conditionals are believed by people, even though they are not actually held true [Horsten] |
Full Idea: In the debate about doxastic attitudes towards indicative conditional sentences, one finds philosophers who claim that conditionals can be believed even though they have no truth value (and thus are not true). | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 09.3) |
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? |
15347 | A theory of syntax can be based on Peano arithmetic, thanks to the translation by Gödel coding [Horsten] |
Full Idea: A notion of formal provability can be articulated in Peano arithmetic. ..This is surprisingly 'linguistic' rather than mathematical, but the key is in the Gödel coding. ..Hence we use Peano arithmetic as a theory of syntax. | |
From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.4) | |
A reaction: This is the explanation of why issues in formal semantics end up being studied in systems based on formal arithmetic. And I had thought it was just because they were geeks who dream in numbers, and can't speak language properly... |