33 ideas
10888 | Sets can be defined by 'enumeration', or by 'abstraction' (based on a property) [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: We can define a set by 'enumeration' (by listing the items, within curly brackets), or by 'abstraction' (by specifying the elements as instances of a property), pretending that they form a determinate totality. The latter is written {x | x is P}. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §1.3) |
13451 | The two best understood conceptions of set are the Iterative and the Limitation of Size [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
Full Idea: The two best understood conceptions of set are the Iterative Conception and the Limitation of Size Conception. | |
From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2) |
10889 | The 'Cartesian Product' of two sets relates them by pairing every element with every element [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea:
The 'Cartesian Product' of two sets, written A x B, is the relation which pairs every element of A with every element of B. So A x B = { |
|
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §1.6) |
10890 | A 'partial ordering' is reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A binary relation in a set is a 'partial ordering' just in case it is reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §1.6) |
10886 | Determinacy: an object is either in a set, or it isn't [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: Principle of Determinacy: For every object a and every set S, either a is an element of S or a is not an element of S. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §1.2) |
10887 | Specification: Determinate totals of objects always make a set [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: Principle of Specification: Whenever we can specify a determinate totality of objects, we shall say that there is a set whose elements are precisely the objects that we have specified. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §1.3) | |
A reaction: Compare the Axiom of Specification. Zalabardo says we may wish to consider sets of which we cannot specify the members. |
13452 | Some set theories give up Separation in exchange for a universal set [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
Full Idea: There are set theories that countenance exceptions to the Principle of Separation in exchange for a universal set. | |
From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2) |
10897 | A first-order 'sentence' is a formula with no free variables [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A formula of a first-order language is a 'sentence' just in case it has no free variables. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.2) |
10893 | Γ |= φ for sentences if φ is true when all of Γ is true [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A propositional logic sentence is a 'logical consequence' of a set of sentences (written Γ |= φ) if for every admissible truth-assignment all the sentences in the set Γ are true, then φ is true. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.4) | |
A reaction: The definition is similar for predicate logic. |
10899 | Γ |= φ if φ is true when all of Γ is true, for all structures and interpretations [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A formula is the 'logical consequence' of a set of formulas (Γ |= φ) if for every structure in the language and every variable interpretation of the structure, if all the formulas within the set are true and the formula itself is true. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.5) |
10896 | Propositional logic just needs ¬, and one of ∧, ∨ and → [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: In propositional logic, any set containing ¬ and at least one of ∧, ∨ and → is expressively complete. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.8) |
13449 | We could have unrestricted quantification without having an all-inclusive domain [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
Full Idea: The possibility of unrestricted quantification does not immediately presuppose the existence of an all-inclusive domain. One could deny an all-inclusive domain but grant that some quantifications are sometimes unrestricted. | |
From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.1) | |
A reaction: Thus you can quantify over anything you like, but only from what is available. Eat what you like (in this restaurant). |
13450 | Absolute generality is impossible, if there are indefinitely extensible concepts like sets and ordinals [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
Full Idea: There are doubts about whether absolute generality is possible, if there are certain concepts which are indefinitely extensible, lacking definite extensions, and yielding an ever more inclusive hierarchy. Sets and ordinals are paradigm cases. | |
From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.1) |
13453 | Perhaps second-order quantifications cover concepts of objects, rather than plain objects [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
Full Idea: If one thought of second-order quantification as quantification over first-level Fregean concepts [note: one under which only objects fall], talk of domains might be regimented as talk of first-level concepts, which are not objects. | |
From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.2.2) | |
A reaction: That is (I take it), don't quantify over objects, but quantify over concepts, but only those under which known objects fall. One might thus achieve naďve comprehension without paradoxes. Sound like fun. |
10898 | The semantics shows how truth values depend on instantiations of properties and relations [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: The semantic pattern of a first-order language is the ways in which truth values depend on which individuals instantiate the properties and relations which figure in them. ..So we pair a truth value with each combination of individuals, sets etc. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.3) | |
A reaction: So truth reduces to a combination of 'instantiations', which is rather like 'satisfaction'. |
10902 | We can do semantics by looking at given propositions, or by building new ones [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: We can look at semantics from the point of view of how truth values are determined by instantiations of properties and relations, or by asking how we can build, using the resources of the language, a proposition corresponding to a given semantic pattern. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.6) | |
A reaction: The second version of semantics is model theory. |
10892 | We make a truth assignment to T and F, which may be true and false, but merely differ from one another [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A truth assignment is a function from propositions to the set {T,F}. We will think of T and F as the truth values true and false, but for our purposes all we need to assume about the identity of these objects is that they are different from each other. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.4) | |
A reaction: Note that T and F are 'objects'. This remark is important in understanding modern logical semantics. T and F can be equated to 1 and 0 in the language of a computer. They just mean as much as you want them to mean. |
10895 | 'Logically true' (|= φ) is true for every truth-assignment [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A propositional logic sentence is 'logically true', written |= φ, if it is true for every admissible truth-assignment. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.4) |
10900 | Logically true sentences are true in all structures [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: In first-order languages, logically true sentences are true in all structures. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.5) |
10894 | A sentence-set is 'satisfiable' if at least one truth-assignment makes them all true [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A propositional logic set of sentences Γ is 'satisfiable' if there is at least one admissible truth-assignment that makes all of its sentences true. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.4) |
10901 | Some formulas are 'satisfiable' if there is a structure and interpretation that makes them true [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A set of formulas of a first-order language is 'satisfiable' if there is a structure and a variable interpretation in that structure such that all the formulas of the set are true. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.5) |
10903 | A structure models a sentence if it is true in the model, and a set of sentences if they are all true in the model [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A structure is a model of a sentence if the sentence is true in the model; a structure is a model of a set of sentences if they are all true in the structure. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.6) |
10891 | If a set is defined by induction, then proof by induction can be applied to it [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: Defining a set by induction enables us to use the method of proof by induction to establish that all the elements of the set have a certain property. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.3) |
19712 | Maybe there is plain 'animal' knowledge, and clearly justified 'reflective' knowledge [Vahid] |
Full Idea: There is a distinction between 'animal knowledge' (which requires only apt belief), and 'reflective knowledge' (requiring both apt and justified belief). | |
From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 5) | |
A reaction: [He cites Sosa 1991] My inclination (Idea 19711) was to think of knowledge as a continuum (possibly with a contextual component), and this distinction doesn't change my view, though it makes the point. |
19703 | Epistemic is normally marked out from moral or pragmatic justifications by its truth-goal [Vahid] |
Full Idea: It is widely believed that epistemic justification is distinct from other species of justification such as moral or pragmatic justification in that it is intended to serve the so-called 'truth-goal'. | |
From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 1) | |
A reaction: Kvanvig explicitly argues against this view. He broadens the aims, but it strikes me that other aims are all intertwined with truth in some way, so I find this idea quite plausible. |
19705 | 'Mentalist' internalism seems to miss the main point, if it might not involve an agent's access [Vahid] |
Full Idea: Since mentalism remains neutral on whether mental states need be accessible to an agent ...it does not seem to do justice to the intuitions that drive paradigm internalist positions. | |
From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 2 A) | |
A reaction: The rival view is 'access internalism', which implies that you can act on and take responsibility for your knowledge, because you are aware of its grounding. If animals know things, that might fit the mentalist picture better. |
19706 | Strong access internalism needs actual awareness; weak versions need possibility of access [Vahid] |
Full Idea: A strong form of 'access internalism' is when an agent is required to be actually aware of the conditions that constitute justification; a weaker version loosens the accessibility condition, requiring only the ability to access the justification. | |
From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 2 B) | |
A reaction: The super strong version implies that you probably only know one thing at a time, so it must be nonsense. The weaker version has grey areas. I remember roughly the justification, but not the details. The justification is in my diary. Etc. |
19707 | Maybe we need access to our justification, and also to know why it justifies [Vahid] |
Full Idea: Access internalism may also have a truth-conducive conception of justification, where one should not only know what one's reasons are, but also why one's beliefs are probable on one's reasons. | |
From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 2 B) | |
A reaction: [he cites Bonjour 1985] Sounds reasonable. It would seem odd if you had clear access to the reason, but didn't understand it, because you had just learned it by rote. |
19709 | Internalism in epistemology over-emphasises deliberation about beliefs [Vahid] |
Full Idea: The internalist approach in epistemology seems to suggest an over-inellectualized and deliberative picture of our belief-forming activities. | |
From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 2.2 B) | |
A reaction: This strikes me as confused. The question is not how do I arrive at my beliefs but what justifies my believing them, and what justifies the beliefs in themselves? My head is full of daft beliefs produced by TV advertising. |
19704 | Externalism may imply that identical mental states might go with different justifications [Vahid] |
Full Idea: According to the 'mentalist' version of internalism, an externalist is someone who maintains that two people can be in the same present mental states while one has a justified belief and the other does not. | |
From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 2 A) | |
A reaction: It seems an unlikely coincidence, that we have identical mental states, but your is (say) reliably created but mine isn't. Nevertheless this does seem to be an implication of externalism, though not a definition of it. |
19710 | With a counterfactual account of the causal theory, we get knowledge as tracking or sensitive to truth [Vahid] |
Full Idea: The causal theory of justification was soon replaced by Nozick's construal of knowledge as counterfactually sensitive to its truth value (that is, it tracks truth). A counterfactual theory of causation connects this to the causal theory. | |
From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 3) | |
A reaction: This is presented as an externalist theory, close to the causal theory (and prior to the reliability theory). But how could you be 'sensitive' to a changing truth if the justification was all external? Externally supported beliefs seem ossified. |
19711 | Externalism makes the acquisition of knowledge too easy? [Vahid] |
Full Idea: Internalists say that externalism is inadequate because it makes the obtaining of knowledge and justified beliefs too easy | |
From: Hamid Vahid (Externalism/Internalism [2011], 4) | |
A reaction: This looks like a key issue in epistemology. Do children and animals have lots of knowledge, which they soak up unthinkingly, or do only thinking adults really 'know' things? Why not have degrees of knowledge? |
13448 | The domain of an assertion is restricted by context, either semantically or pragmatically [Rayo/Uzquiano] |
Full Idea: We generally take an assertion's domain of discourse to be implicitly restricted by context. [Note: the standard approach is that this restriction is a semantic phenomenon, but Kent Bach (2000) argues that it is a pragmatic phenomenon] | |
From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.1) | |
A reaction: I think Kent Bach is very very right about this. Follow any conversation, and ask what the domain is at any moment. The reference of a word like 'they' can drift across things, with no semantics to guide us, but only clues from context and common sense. |