54 ideas
| 9921 | 'True' is only occasionally useful, as in 'everything Fermat believed was true' [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: In the disquotational view of truth, what saves truth from being wholly redundant and so wholly useless, is mainly that it provides an ability to state generalisations like 'Everything Fermat believed was true'. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.2.c) | |
| A reaction: Sounds like the thin end of the wedge. Presumably we can infer that the first thing Fermat believed on his last Christmas Day was true. |
| 9724 | Until the 1960s the only semantics was truth-tables [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Until the 1960s standard truth-table semantics were the only ones that there were. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.10.1) | |
| A reaction: The 1960s presumably marked the advent of possible worlds. |
| 9924 | Modal logic gives an account of metalogical possibility, not metaphysical possibility [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: If you want a logic of metaphysical possibility, the existing literature was originally developed to supply a logic of metalogical possibility, and still reflects its origins. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.B.3.b) | |
| A reaction: This is a warning shot (which I don't fully understand) to people like me, who were beginning to think they could fill their ontology with possibilia, which could then be incorporated into the wider account of logical thinking. Ah well... |
| 9703 | 'dom R' indicates the 'domain' of objects having a relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: 'dom R' indicates the 'domain' of a relation, that is, the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs and that have that relation. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9705 | 'fld R' indicates the 'field' of all objects in the relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: 'fld R' indicates the 'field' of a relation, that is, the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs on either side of the relation. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9704 | 'ran R' indicates the 'range' of objects being related to [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: 'ran R' indicates the 'range' of a relation, that is, the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs and that are related to by the first objects. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9710 | We write F:A→B to indicate that A maps into B (the output of F on A is in B) [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: We write F : A → B to indicate that A maps into B, that is, the domain of relating things is set A, and the things related to are all in B. If we add that F = B, then A maps 'onto' B. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9707 | 'F(x)' is the unique value which F assumes for a value of x [Enderton] |
|
Full Idea:
F(x) is a 'function', which indicates the unique value which y takes in |
|
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 13206 | A 'linear or total ordering' must be transitive and satisfy trichotomy [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A 'linear ordering' (or 'total ordering') on A is a binary relation R meeting two conditions: R is transitive (of xRy and yRz, the xRz), and R satisfies trichotomy (either xRy or x=y or yRx). | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (Elements of Set Theory [1977], 3:62) |
| 13201 | ∈ says the whole set is in the other; ⊆ says the members of the subset are in the other [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: To know if A ∈ B, we look at the set A as a single object, and check if it is among B's members. But if we want to know whether A ⊆ B then we must open up set A and check whether its various members are among the members of B. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (Elements of Set Theory [1977], 1:04) | |
| A reaction: This idea is one of the key ideas to grasp if you are going to get the hang of set theory. John ∈ USA ∈ UN, but John is not a member of the UN, because he isn't a country. See Idea 12337 for a special case. |
| 13204 | The 'ordered pair' <x,y> is defined to be {{x}, {x,y}} [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The 'ordered pair' <x,y> is defined to be {{x}, {x,y}}; hence it can be proved that <u,v> = <x,y> iff u = x and v = y (given by Kuratowski in 1921). ...The definition is somewhat arbitrary, and others could be used. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (Elements of Set Theory [1977], 3:36) | |
| A reaction: This looks to me like one of those regular cases where the formal definitions capture all the logical behaviour of the concept that are required for inference, while failing to fully capture the concept for ordinary conversation. |
| 9699 | The 'powerset' of a set is all the subsets of a given set [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The 'powerset' of a set is all the subsets of a given set. Thus: PA = {x : x ⊆ A}. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9700 | Two sets are 'disjoint' iff their intersection is empty [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Two sets are 'disjoint' iff their intersection is empty (i.e. they have no members in common). | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9702 | A 'domain' of a relation is the set of members of ordered pairs in the relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The 'domain' of a relation is the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs that are members of the relation. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9701 | A 'relation' is a set of ordered pairs [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A 'relation' is a set of ordered pairs. The ordering relation on the numbers 0-3 is captured by - in fact it is - the set of ordered pairs {<0,1>,<0,2>,<0,3>,<1,2>,<1,3>,<2,3>}. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) | |
| A reaction: This can't quite be a definition of order among numbers, since it relies on the notion of a 'ordered' pair. |
| 9706 | A 'function' is a relation in which each object is related to just one other object [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A 'function' is a relation which is single-valued. That is, for each object, there is only one object in the function set to which that object is related. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9708 | A function 'maps A into B' if the relating things are set A, and the things related to are all in B [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A function 'maps A into B' if the domain of relating things is set A, and the things related to are all in B. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9709 | A function 'maps A onto B' if the relating things are set A, and the things related to are set B [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A function 'maps A onto B' if the domain of relating things is set A, and the things related to are set B. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9711 | A relation is 'reflexive' on a set if every member bears the relation to itself [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation is 'reflexive' on a set if every member of the set bears the relation to itself. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9712 | A relation is 'symmetric' on a set if every ordered pair has the relation in both directions [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation is 'symmetric' on a set if every ordered pair in the set has the relation in both directions. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9717 | A set is 'dominated' by another if a one-to-one function maps the first set into a subset of the second [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A set is 'dominated' by another if a one-to-one function maps the first set into a subset of the second. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9713 | A relation is 'transitive' if it can be carried over from two ordered pairs to a third [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation is 'transitive' on a set if the relation can be carried over from two ordered pairs to a third. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9714 | A relation satisfies 'trichotomy' if all pairs are either relations, or contain identical objects [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation satisfies 'trichotomy' on a set if every ordered pair is related (in either direction), or the objects are identical. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 13200 | Note that {Φ} =/= Φ, because Φ ∈ {Φ} but Φ ∉ Φ [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Note that {Φ} =/= Φ, because Φ ∈ {Φ} but Φ ∉ Φ. A man with an empty container is better off than a man with nothing. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (Elements of Set Theory [1977], 1.03) |
| 13199 | The empty set may look pointless, but many sets can be constructed from it [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: It might be thought at first that the empty set would be a rather useless or even frivolous set to mention, but from the empty set by various set-theoretic operations a surprising array of sets will be constructed. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (Elements of Set Theory [1977], 1:02) | |
| A reaction: This nicely sums up the ontological commitments of mathematics - that we will accept absolutely anything, as long as we can have some fun with it. Sets are an abstraction from reality, and the empty set is the very idea of that abstraction. |
| 13203 | The singleton is defined using the pairing axiom (as {x,x}) [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Given any x we have the singleton {x}, which is defined by the pairing axiom to be {x,x}. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (Elements of Set Theory [1977], 2:19) | |
| A reaction: An interesting contrivance which is obviously aimed at keeping the axioms to a minimum. If you can do it intuitively with a new axiom, or unintuitively with an existing axiom - prefer the latter! |
| 9715 | An 'equivalence relation' is a reflexive, symmetric and transitive binary relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: An 'equivalence relation' is a binary relation which is reflexive, and symmetric, and transitive. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9716 | We 'partition' a set into distinct subsets, according to each relation on its objects [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Equivalence classes will 'partition' a set. That is, it will divide it into distinct subsets, according to each relation on the set. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 13202 | Fraenkel added Replacement, to give a theory of ordinal numbers [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: It was observed by several people that for a satisfactory theory of ordinal numbers, Zermelo's axioms required strengthening. The Axiom of Replacement was proposed by Fraenkel and others, giving rise to the Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axioms. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (Elements of Set Theory [1977], 1:15) |
| 13205 | We can only define functions if Choice tells us which items are involved [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: For functions, we know that for any y there exists an appropriate x, but we can't yet form a function H, as we have no way of defining one particular choice of x. Hence we need the axiom of choice. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (Elements of Set Theory [1977], 3:48) |
| 9933 | The paradoxes are only a problem for Frege; Cantor didn't assume every condition determines a set [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The paradoxes only seem to arise in connection with Frege's logical notion of extension or class, not Cantor's mathematical notion of set. Cantor never assumed that every condition determines a set. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: This makes the whole issue a parochial episode in the history of philosophy, not a central question. Cantor favoured some sort of abstractionism (see Kit Fine on the subject). |
| 9928 | Mereology implies that acceptance of entities entails acceptance of conglomerates [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Mereology has ontological implications. The acceptance of some initial entities involves the acceptance of many further entities, arbitrary wholes having the entities as parts. It must accept conglomerates. Geometric points imply geometric regions. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: Presumably without the wholes being entailed by the parts, there is no subject called 'mereology'. But if the conglomeration is unrestricted, there is not much left to be said. 'Restricted' composition (by nature?) sounds a nice line. |
| 9722 | Inference not from content, but from the fact that it was said, is 'conversational implicature' [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The process is dubbed 'conversational implicature' when the inference is not from the content of what has been said, but from the fact that it has been said. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.7.3) |
| 9718 | Validity is either semantic (what preserves truth), or proof-theoretic (following procedures) [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The point of logic is to give an account of the notion of validity,..in two standard ways: the semantic way says that a valid inference preserves truth (symbol |=), and the proof-theoretic way is defined in terms of purely formal procedures (symbol |-). | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.1.3..) | |
| A reaction: This division can be mirrored in mathematics, where it is either to do with counting or theorising about things in the physical world, or following sets of rules from axioms. Language can discuss reality, or play word-games. |
| 9926 | A relation is either a set of sets of sets, or a set of sets [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: While in general a relation is taken to be a set of ordered pairs <u, v> = {{u}, {u, v}}, and hence a set of sets of sets, in special cases a relation can be represented by a set of sets. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.a) | |
| A reaction: [See book for their examples, which are <, symmetric, and arbitrary] The fact that a relation (or anything else) can be represented in a certain way should never ever be taken to mean that you now know what the thing IS. |
| 9721 | A logical truth or tautology is a logical consequence of the empty set [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A is a logical truth (tautology) (|= A) iff it is a semantic consequence of the empty set of premises (φ |= A), that is, every interpretation makes A true. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.3.4) | |
| A reaction: So the final column of every line of the truth table will be T. |
| 9994 | A truth assignment to the components of a wff 'satisfy' it if the wff is then True [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A truth assignment 'satisfies' a formula, or set of formulae, if it evaluates as True when all of its components have been assigned truth values. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: [very roughly what Enderton says!] The concept becomes most significant when a large set of wff's is pronounced 'satisfied' after a truth assignment leads to them all being true. |
| 9719 | A proof theory is 'sound' if its valid inferences entail semantic validity [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: If every proof-theoretically valid inference is semantically valid (so that |- entails |=), the proof theory is said to be 'sound'. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.1.7) |
| 9720 | A proof theory is 'complete' if semantically valid inferences entail proof-theoretic validity [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: If every semantically valid inference is proof-theoretically valid (so that |= entails |-), the proof-theory is said to be 'complete'. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.1.7) |
| 9995 | Proof in finite subsets is sufficient for proof in an infinite set [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: If a wff is tautologically implied by a set of wff's, it is implied by a finite subset of them; and if every finite subset is satisfiable, then so is the whole set of wff's. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: [Enderton's account is more symbolic] He adds that this also applies to models. It is a 'theorem' because it can be proved. It is a major theorem in logic, because it brings the infinite under control, and who doesn't want that? |
| 9996 | Expressions are 'decidable' if inclusion in them (or not) can be proved [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A set of expressions is 'decidable' iff there exists an effective procedure (qv) that, given some expression, will decide whether or not the expression is included in the set (i.e. doesn't contradict it). | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: This is obviously a highly desirable feature for a really reliable system of expressions to possess. All finite sets are decidable, but some infinite sets are not. |
| 9997 | For a reasonable language, the set of valid wff's can always be enumerated [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The Enumerability Theorem says that for a reasonable language, the set of valid wff's can be effectively enumerated. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: There are criteria for what makes a 'reasonable' language (probably specified to ensure enumerability!). Predicates and functions must be decidable, and the language must be finite. |
| 9932 | The paradoxes no longer seem crucial in critiques of set theory [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Recent commentators have de-emphasised the set paradoxes because they play no prominent part in motivating the most articulate and active opponents of set theory, such as Kronecker (constructivism) or Brouwer (intuitionism), or Weyl (predicativism). | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be a sad illustration of the way most analytical philosophers have to limp along behind the logicians and mathematicians, arguing furiously about problems that have largely been abandoned. |
| 9923 | We should talk about possible existence, rather than actual existence, of numbers [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The modal strategy for numbers is to replace assumptions about the actual existence of numbers by assumptions about the possible existence of numbers | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.B.3.a) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be quite a good way of dealing with very large numbers and infinities. It is not clear whether 5 is so regularly actualised that we must consider it as permanent, or whether it is just a prominent permanent possibility. |
| 9925 | Structuralism and nominalism are normally rivals, but might work together [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Usually structuralism and nominalism are considered rivals. But structuralism can also be the first step in a strategy of nominalist reconstrual or paraphrase. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.0) | |
| A reaction: Hellman and later Chihara seem to be the main proponents of nominalist structuralism. My sympathies lie with this strategy. Are there objects at the nodes of the structure, or is the structure itself platonic? Mill offers a route. |
| 9934 | Number words became nouns around the time of Plato [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The transition from using number words purely as adjectives to using them extensively as nouns has been traced to 'around the time of Plato'. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.C.2.a) | |
| A reaction: [The cite Kneale and Kneale VI,§2 for this] It is just too tempting to think that in fact Plato (and early Platonists) were totally responsible for this shift, since the whole reification of numbers seems to be inherently platonist. |
| 9918 | Abstract/concrete is a distinction of kind, not degree [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The distinction of abstract and concrete is one of kind and not degree. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.1.a) | |
| A reaction: I think I must agree with this. If there is a borderline, it would be in particulars that seem to have an abstract aspect to them. A horse involves the abstraction of being a horse, and it involves be one horse. |
| 9929 | Much of what science says about concrete entities is 'abstraction-laden' [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: Much of what science says about concrete entities is 'abstraction-laden'. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.A.1.d) | |
| A reaction: Not just science. In ordinary conversation we continually refer to particulars using so-called 'universal' predicates and object-terms, which are presumably abstractions. 'I've just seen an elephant'. |
| 9927 | Mathematics has ascended to higher and higher levels of abstraction [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: In mathematics, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, there has been an ascent to higher and higher levels of abstraction. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.C.1.b) | |
| A reaction: I am interested in clarifying what this means, which might involve the common sense and psychological view of the matter, as well as some sort of formal definition in terms of equivalence (or whatever). |
| 9930 | Abstraction is on a scale, of sets, to attributes, to type-formulas, to token-formulas [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: There is a scale of abstractness that leads downwards from sets through attributes to formulas as abstract types and on to formulas as abstract tokens. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], III.B.2.c) | |
| A reaction: Presumably the 'abstract tokens' at the bottom must have some interpretation, to support the system. Presumably one can keep going upwards, through sets of sets of sets. |
| 9723 | Sentences with 'if' are only conditionals if they can read as A-implies-B [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Not all sentences using 'if' are conditionals. Consider 'if you want a banana, there is one in the kitchen'. The rough test is that a conditional can be rewritten as 'that A implies that B'. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.6.4) |
| 9919 | The old debate classified representations as abstract, not entities [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: The original debate was over abstract ideas; thus it was mental (or linguistic) representations that were classified as abstract or otherwise, and not the entities represented. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], I.A.1.b) | |
| A reaction: This seems to beg the question of whether there are any such entities. It is equally plausible to talk of the entities that are 'constructed', rather than 'represented'. |
| 6005 | Animals are dangerous and nourishing, and can't form contracts of justice [Hermarchus, by Sedley] |
| Full Idea: Hermarchus said that animal killing is justified by considerations of human safety and nourishment and by animals' inability to form contractual relations of justice with us. | |
| From: report of Hermarchus (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by David A. Sedley - Hermarchus | |
| A reaction: Could the last argument be used to justify torturing animals? Or could we eat a human who was too brain-damaged to form contracts? |
| 9922 | If space is really just a force-field, then it is a physical entity [Burgess/Rosen] |
| Full Idea: According to many philosophical commentators, a force-field must be considered to be a physical entity, and as the distinction between space and the force-field may be considered to be merely verbal, space itself may be considered to be a physical entity. | |
| From: JP Burgess / G Rosen (A Subject with No Object [1997], II.A.1) | |
| A reaction: The ontology becomes a bit odd if we cheerfully accept that space is physical, but then we can't give the same account of time. I'm not sure how time could be physical. What's it made of? |