Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Richard Price, Nagarjuna and Kenneth Kunen

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these philosophers


15 ideas

4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / b. Axiom of Extensionality I
Extensionality: ∀x ∀y (∀z (z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y) → x = y) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Extensionality: ∀x ∀y (∀z (z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y) → x = y). That is, a set is determined by its members. If every z in one set is also in the other set, then the two sets are the same.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.5)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / c. Axiom of Pairing II
Pairing: ∀x ∀y ∃z (x ∈ z ∧ y ∈ z) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Pairing: ∀x ∀y ∃z (x ∈ z ∧ y ∈ z). Any pair of entities must form a set.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.6)
     A reaction: Repeated applications of this can build the hierarchy of sets.
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / d. Axiom of Unions III
Union: ∀F ∃A ∀Y ∀x (x ∈ Y ∧ Y ∈ F → x ∈ A) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Union: ∀F ∃A ∀Y ∀x (x ∈ Y ∧ Y ∈ F → x ∈ A). That is, the union of a set (all the members of the members of the set) must also be a set.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.6)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / f. Axiom of Infinity V
Infinity: ∃x (0 ∈ x ∧ ∀y ∈ x (S(y) ∈ x) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Infinity: ∃x (0 ∈ x ∧ ∀y ∈ x (S(y) ∈ x). That is, there is a set which contains zero and all of its successors, hence all the natural numbers. The principal of induction rests on this axiom.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.7)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / g. Axiom of Powers VI
Power Set: ∀x ∃y ∀z(z ⊂ x → z ∈ y) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Power Set Axiom: ∀x ∃y ∀z(z ⊂ x → z ∈ y). That is, there is a set y which contains all of the subsets of a given set. Hence we define P(x) = {z : z ⊂ x}.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.10)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / h. Axiom of Replacement VII
Replacement: ∀x∈A ∃!y φ(x,y) → ∃Y ∀X∈A ∃y∈Y φ(x,y) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Replacement Scheme: ∀x ∈ A ∃!y φ(x,y) → ∃Y ∀X ∈ A ∃y ∈ Y φ(x,y). That is, any function from a set A will produce another set Y.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.6)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / i. Axiom of Foundation VIII
Foundation:∀x(∃y(y∈x) → ∃y(y∈x ∧ ¬∃z(z∈x ∧ z∈y))) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Foundation: ∀x (∃y(y ∈ x) → ∃y(y ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z(z ∈ x ∧ z ∈ y))). Aka the 'Axiom of Regularity'. Combined with Choice, it means there are no downward infinite chains.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §3.4)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / j. Axiom of Choice IX
Choice: ∀A ∃R (R well-orders A) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Choice: ∀A ∃R (R well-orders A). That is, for every set, there must exist another set which imposes a well-ordering on it. There are many equivalent versions. It is not needed in elementary parts of set theory.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.6)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / k. Axiom of Existence
Set Existence: ∃x (x = x) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Set Existence: ∃x (x = x). This says our universe is non-void. Under most developments of formal logic, this is derivable from the logical axioms and thus redundant, but we do so for emphasis.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.5)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / n. Axiom of Comprehension
Comprehension: ∃y ∀x (x ∈ y ↔ x ∈ z ∧ φ) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Comprehension Scheme: for each formula φ without y free, the universal closure of this is an axiom: ∃y ∀x (x ∈ y ↔ x ∈ z ∧ φ). That is, there must be a set y if it can be defined by the formula φ.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.5)
     A reaction: Unrestricted comprehension leads to Russell's paradox, so restricting it in some way (e.g. by the Axiom of Specification) is essential.
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / o. Axiom of Constructibility V = L
Constructibility: V = L (all sets are constructible) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Constructability: this is the statement V = L (i.e. ∀x ∃α(x ∈ L(α)). That is, the universe of well-founded von Neumann sets is the same as the universe of sets which are actually constructible. A possible axiom.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §6.3)
8. Modes of Existence / A. Relations / 4. Formal Relations / b. Equivalence relation
An 'equivalence' relation is one which is reflexive, symmetric and transitive [Kunen]
     Full Idea: R is an equivalence relation on A iff R is reflexive, symmetric and transitive on A.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (The Foundations of Mathematics (2nd ed) [2012], I.7.1)
22. Metaethics / A. Ethics Foundations / 2. Source of Ethics / c. Ethical intuitionism
The forefather of modern intuitionism is Richard Price [Price,R, by Dancy,J]
     Full Idea: The forefather of modern intuitionism is Richard Price.
     From: report of Richard Price (works [1760]) by Jonathan Dancy - Intuitionism
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / a. Virtues
The six perfections are giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom [Nagarjuna]
     Full Idea: The six perfections are of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom.
     From: Nagarjuna (Mahaprajnaparamitashastra [c.120], 88)
     A reaction: What is 'morality', if giving is not part of it? I like patience and vigour being two of the virtues, which immediately implies an Aristotelian mean (which is always what is 'appropriate').
29. Religion / C. Spiritual Disciplines / 3. Buddhism
Nagarjuna and others pronounced the world of experience to be an illusion [Nagarjuna, by Armstrong,K]
     Full Idea: Many later Buddhists (after Nagarjuna, c.120 CE) developed a belief that everything we experience is an illusion: in the West we would call them idealists.
     From: report of Nagarjuna (teachings [c.120]) by Karen Armstrong - A History of God Ch.3
     A reaction: This is just one step beyond Plato (who at least hung onto the immediate world as an inferior reality), and is presumably intended to motivate meditators to break out of the misery of existence into a higher realm. Personally I am against it.