85 ideas
| 13466 | We are all post-Kantians, because he set the current agenda for philosophy [Hart,WD] |
| 13477 | The problems are the monuments of philosophy [Hart,WD] |
| 13515 | To study abstract problems, some knowledge of set theory is essential [Hart,WD] |
| 9123 | Someone standing in a doorway seems to be both in and not-in the room [Priest,G, by Sorensen] |
| 13469 | Tarski showed how we could have a correspondence theory of truth, without using 'facts' [Hart,WD] |
| 13504 | Truth for sentences is satisfaction of formulae; for sentences, either all sequences satisfy it (true) or none do [Hart,WD] |
| 13503 | A first-order language has an infinity of T-sentences, which cannot add up to a definition of truth [Hart,WD] |
| 13500 | Conditional Proof: infer a conditional, if the consequent can be deduced from the antecedent [Hart,WD] |
| 13502 | ∃y... is read as 'There exists an individual, call it y, such that...', and not 'There exists a y such that...' [Hart,WD] |
| 8720 | A logic is 'relevant' if premise and conclusion are connected, and 'paraconsistent' allows contradictions [Priest,G, by Friend] |
| 9672 | Free logic is one of the few first-order non-classical logics [Priest,G] |
| 13456 | Set theory articulates the concept of order (through relations) [Hart,WD] |
| 13497 | Nowadays ZFC and NBG are the set theories; types are dead, and NF is only useful for the whole universe [Hart,WD] |
| 9697 | X1 x X2 x X3... x Xn indicates the 'cartesian product' of those sets [Priest,G] |
| 13443 | ∈ relates across layers, while ⊆ relates within layers [Hart,WD] |
| 9685 | <a,b&62; is a set whose members occur in the order shown [Priest,G] |
| 9675 | a ∈ X says a is an object in set X; a ∉ X says a is not in X [Priest,G] |
| 9674 | {x; A(x)} is a set of objects satisfying the condition A(x) [Priest,G] |
| 9673 | {a1, a2, ...an} indicates that a set comprising just those objects [Priest,G] |
| 9677 | Φ indicates the empty set, which has no members [Priest,G] |
| 9676 | {a} is the 'singleton' set of a (not the object a itself) [Priest,G] |
| 9679 | X⊂Y means set X is a 'proper subset' of set Y [Priest,G] |
| 9678 | X⊆Y means set X is a 'subset' of set Y [Priest,G] |
| 9681 | X = Y means the set X equals the set Y [Priest,G] |
| 9683 | X ∩ Y indicates the 'intersection' of sets X and Y, the objects which are in both sets [Priest,G] |
| 9682 | X∪Y indicates the 'union' of all the things in sets X and Y [Priest,G] |
| 9684 | Y - X is the 'relative complement' of X with respect to Y; the things in Y that are not in X [Priest,G] |
| 9694 | The 'relative complement' is things in the second set not in the first [Priest,G] |
| 9693 | The 'intersection' of two sets is a set of the things that are in both sets [Priest,G] |
| 9692 | The 'union' of two sets is a set containing all the things in either of the sets [Priest,G] |
| 9698 | The 'induction clause' says complex formulas retain the properties of their basic formulas [Priest,G] |
| 9695 | An 'ordered pair' (or ordered n-tuple) is a set with its members in a particular order [Priest,G] |
| 9696 | A 'cartesian product' of sets is the set of all the n-tuples with one member in each of the sets [Priest,G] |
| 9686 | A 'set' is a collection of objects [Priest,G] |
| 9689 | The 'empty set' or 'null set' has no members [Priest,G] |
| 9690 | A set is a 'subset' of another set if all of its members are in that set [Priest,G] |
| 9691 | A 'proper subset' is smaller than the containing set [Priest,G] |
| 9688 | A 'singleton' is a set with only one member [Priest,G] |
| 9687 | A 'member' of a set is one of the objects in the set [Priest,G] |
| 9680 | The empty set Φ is a subset of every set (including itself) [Priest,G] |
| 13442 | Without the empty set we could not form a∩b without checking that a and b meet [Hart,WD] |
| 13493 | In the modern view, foundation is the heart of the way to do set theory [Hart,WD] |
| 13495 | Foundation Axiom: an nonempty set has a member disjoint from it [Hart,WD] |
| 13461 | We can choose from finite and evident sets, but not from infinite opaque ones [Hart,WD] |
| 13462 | With the Axiom of Choice every set can be well-ordered [Hart,WD] |
| 13516 | If we accept that V=L, it seems to settle all the open questions of set theory [Hart,WD] |
| 13441 | Naïve set theory has trouble with comprehension, the claim that every predicate has an extension [Hart,WD] |
| 13494 | The iterative conception may not be necessary, and may have fixed points or infinitely descending chains [Hart,WD] |
| 13457 | A 'partial ordering' is irreflexive and transitive; the sets are ordered, but not the subsets [Hart,WD] |
| 13458 | A partial ordering becomes 'total' if any two members of its field are comparable [Hart,WD] |
| 13460 | 'Well-ordering' must have a least member, so it does the natural numbers but not the integers [Hart,WD] |
| 13490 | Von Neumann defines α<β as α∈β [Hart,WD] |
| 13481 | Maybe sets should be rethought in terms of the even more basic categories [Hart,WD] |
| 13506 | The universal quantifier can't really mean 'all', because there is no universal set [Hart,WD] |
| 13512 | Modern model theory begins with the proof of Los's Conjecture in 1962 [Hart,WD] |
| 13505 | Model theory studies how set theory can model sets of sentences [Hart,WD] |
| 13511 | Model theory is mostly confined to first-order theories [Hart,WD] |
| 13513 | Models are ways the world might be from a first-order point of view [Hart,WD] |
| 13496 | First-order logic is 'compact': consequences of a set are consequences of a finite subset [Hart,WD] |
| 13373 | Typically, paradoxes are dealt with by dividing them into two groups, but the division is wrong [Priest,G] |
| 13368 | The 'least indefinable ordinal' is defined by that very phrase [Priest,G] |
| 13370 | 'x is a natural number definable in less than 19 words' leads to contradiction [Priest,G] |
| 13484 | Berry's Paradox: we succeed in referring to a number, with a term which says we can't do that [Hart,WD] |
| 13369 | By diagonalization we can define a real number that isn't in the definable set of reals [Priest,G] |
| 13482 | The Burali-Forti paradox is a crisis for Cantor's ordinals [Hart,WD] |
| 13366 | The least ordinal greater than the set of all ordinals is both one of them and not one of them [Priest,G] |
| 13367 | The next set up in the hierarchy of sets seems to be both a member and not a member of it [Priest,G] |
| 13507 | The machinery used to solve the Liar can be rejigged to produce a new Liar [Hart,WD] |
| 13371 | If you know that a sentence is not one of the known sentences, you know its truth [Priest,G] |
| 13372 | There are Liar Pairs, and Liar Chains, which fit the same pattern as the basic Liar [Priest,G] |
| 9117 | The smallest heap has four objects: three on the bottom, one on the top [Hart,WD, by Sorensen] |
| 13459 | The less-than relation < well-orders, and partially orders, and totally orders the ordinal numbers [Hart,WD] |
| 13491 | The axiom of infinity with separation gives a least limit ordinal ω [Hart,WD] |
| 13463 | There are at least as many infinite cardinals as transfinite ordinals (because they will map) [Hart,WD] |
| 13492 | Von Neumann's ordinals generalise into the transfinite better, because Zermelo's ω is a singleton [Hart,WD] |
| 13446 | 19th century arithmetization of analysis isolated the real numbers from geometry [Hart,WD] |
| 13509 | We can establish truths about infinite numbers by means of induction [Hart,WD] |
| 13474 | Euclid has a unique parallel, spherical geometry has none, and saddle geometry has several [Hart,WD] |
| 13471 | Mathematics makes existence claims, but philosophers usually say those are never analytic [Hart,WD] |
| 13488 | Mass words do not have plurals, or numerical adjectives, or use 'fewer' [Hart,WD] |
| 13480 | Fregean self-evidence is an intrinsic property of basic truths, rules and definitions [Hart,WD] |
| 13476 | The failure of key assumptions in geometry, mereology and set theory throw doubt on the a priori [Hart,WD] |
| 13475 | The Fregean concept of GREEN is a function assigning true to green things, and false to the rest [Hart,WD] |
| 1868 | The world was made as much for animals as for man [Celsus] |
| 1867 | Christians presented Jesus as a new kind of logos to oppose that of the philosophers [Celsus] |