183 ideas
| 19275 | You cannot understand what exists without understanding possibility and necessity [Hale] |
| 10308 | Questions about objects are questions about certain non-vacuous singular terms [Hale] |
| 19291 | A canonical defintion specifies the type of thing, and what distinguish this specimen [Hale] |
| 18137 | Impredicative definitions are wrong, because they change the set that is being defined? [Bostock] |
| 10314 | An expression is a genuine singular term if it resists elimination by paraphrase [Hale] |
| 13439 | Venn Diagrams map three predicates into eight compartments, then look for the conclusion [Bostock] |
| 13421 | 'Disjunctive Normal Form' is ensuring that no conjunction has a disjunction within its scope [Bostock] |
| 13422 | 'Conjunctive Normal Form' is ensuring that no disjunction has a conjunction within its scope [Bostock] |
| 13355 | 'Disjunction' says that Γ,φ∨ψ|= iff Γ,φ|= and Γ,ψ|= [Bostock] |
| 13350 | 'Assumptions' says that a formula entails itself (φ|=φ) [Bostock] |
| 13351 | 'Thinning' allows that if premisses entail a conclusion, then adding further premisses makes no difference [Bostock] |
| 13356 | The 'conditional' is that Γ|=φ→ψ iff Γ,φ|=ψ [Bostock] |
| 13352 | 'Cutting' allows that if x is proved, and adding y then proves z, you can go straight to z [Bostock] |
| 13353 | 'Negation' says that Γ,¬φ|= iff Γ|=φ [Bostock] |
| 13354 | 'Conjunction' says that Γ|=φ∧ψ iff Γ|=φ and Γ|=ψ [Bostock] |
| 13610 | A logic with ¬ and → needs three axiom-schemas and one rule as foundation [Bostock] |
| 19297 | The two Barcan principles are easily proved in fairly basic modal logic [Hale] |
| 19301 | With a negative free logic, we can dispense with the Barcan formulae [Hale] |
| 18122 | Classical interdefinitions of logical constants and quantifiers is impossible in intuitionism [Bostock] |
| 13846 | A 'free' logic can have empty names, and a 'universally free' logic can have empty domains [Bostock] |
| 18114 | There is no single agreed structure for set theory [Bostock] |
| 18107 | A 'proper class' cannot be a member of anything [Bostock] |
| 18115 | We could add axioms to make sets either as small or as large as possible [Bostock] |
| 18139 | The Axiom of Choice relies on reference to sets that we are unable to describe [Bostock] |
| 18105 | Replacement enforces a 'limitation of size' test for the existence of sets [Bostock] |
| 18108 | First-order logic is not decidable: there is no test of whether any formula is valid [Bostock] |
| 18109 | The completeness of first-order logic implies its compactness [Bostock] |
| 13346 | Truth is the basic notion in classical logic [Bostock] |
| 13545 | Elementary logic cannot distinguish clearly between the finite and the infinite [Bostock] |
| 13822 | Fictional characters wreck elementary logic, as they have contradictions and no excluded middle [Bostock] |
| 19296 | If second-order variables range over sets, those are just objects; properties and relations aren't sets [Hale] |
| 13623 | The syntactic turnstile |- φ means 'there is a proof of φ' or 'φ is a theorem' [Bostock] |
| 13347 | Validity is a conclusion following for premises, even if there is no proof [Bostock] |
| 13348 | It seems more natural to express |= as 'therefore', rather than 'entails' [Bostock] |
| 13349 | Γ|=φ is 'entails'; Γ|= is 'is inconsistent'; |=φ is 'valid' [Bostock] |
| 13614 | MPP: 'If Γ|=φ and Γ|=φ→ψ then Γ|=ψ' (omit Γs for Detachment) [Bostock] |
| 13617 | MPP is a converse of Deduction: If Γ |- φ→ψ then Γ,φ|-ψ [Bostock] |
| 19289 | Maybe conventionalism applies to meaning, but not to the truth of propositions expressed [Hale] |
| 13800 | |= α=α and α=β |= φ(α/ξ ↔ φ(β/ξ) fix identity [Bostock] |
| 13803 | If we are to express that there at least two things, we need identity [Bostock] |
| 13799 | The sign '=' is a two-place predicate expressing that 'a is the same thing as b' (a=b) [Bostock] |
| 13357 | Truth-functors are usually held to be defined by their truth-tables [Bostock] |
| 13812 | A 'zero-place' function just has a single value, so it is a name [Bostock] |
| 13811 | A 'total' function ranges over the whole domain, a 'partial' function over appropriate inputs [Bostock] |
| 13360 | In logic, a name is just any expression which refers to a particular single object [Bostock] |
| 10316 | We should decide whether singular terms are genuine by their usage [Hale] |
| 10312 | Often the same singular term does not ensure reliable inference [Hale] |
| 10313 | Plenty of clear examples have singular terms with no ontological commitment [Hale] |
| 10322 | If singular terms can't be language-neutral, then we face a relativity about their objects [Hale] |
| 13361 | An expression is only a name if it succeeds in referring to a real object [Bostock] |
| 13813 | Definite descriptions don't always pick out one thing, as in denials of existence, or errors [Bostock] |
| 13814 | Definite desciptions resemble names, but can't actually be names, if they don't always refer [Bostock] |
| 13816 | Because of scope problems, definite descriptions are best treated as quantifiers [Bostock] |
| 13817 | Definite descriptions are usually treated like names, and are just like them if they uniquely refer [Bostock] |
| 13848 | We are only obliged to treat definite descriptions as non-names if only the former have scope [Bostock] |
| 13815 | Names do not have scope problems (e.g. in placing negation), but Russell's account does have that problem [Bostock] |
| 13438 | 'Prenex normal form' is all quantifiers at the beginning, out of the scope of truth-functors [Bostock] |
| 13818 | If we allow empty domains, we must allow empty names [Bostock] |
| 18123 | Substitutional quantification is just standard if all objects in the domain have a name [Bostock] |
| 13801 | An 'informal proof' is in no particular system, and uses obvious steps and some ordinary English [Bostock] |
| 13619 | Quantification adds two axiom-schemas and a new rule [Bostock] |
| 13622 | Axiom systems from Frege, Russell, Church, Lukasiewicz, Tarski, Nicod, Kleene, Quine... [Bostock] |
| 13615 | 'Conditonalised' inferences point to the Deduction Theorem: If Γ,φ|-ψ then Γ|-φ→ψ [Bostock] |
| 13620 | Proof by Assumptions can always be reduced to Proof by Axioms, using the Deduction Theorem [Bostock] |
| 13621 | The Deduction Theorem and Reductio can 'discharge' assumptions - they aren't needed for the new truth [Bostock] |
| 13616 | The Deduction Theorem greatly simplifies the search for proof [Bostock] |
| 18120 | The Deduction Theorem is what licenses a system of natural deduction [Bostock] |
| 13753 | Natural deduction takes proof from assumptions (with its rules) as basic, and axioms play no part [Bostock] |
| 13755 | Excluded middle is an introduction rule for negation, and ex falso quodlibet will eliminate it [Bostock] |
| 13758 | In natural deduction we work from the premisses and the conclusion, hoping to meet in the middle [Bostock] |
| 13754 | Natural deduction rules for → are the Deduction Theorem (→I) and Modus Ponens (→E) [Bostock] |
| 19298 | Unlike axiom proofs, natural deduction proofs needn't focus on logical truths and theorems [Hale] |
| 13611 | Tableau proofs use reduction - seeking an impossible consequence from an assumption [Bostock] |
| 13613 | A completed open branch gives an interpretation which verifies those formulae [Bostock] |
| 13612 | Non-branching rules add lines, and branching rules need a split; a branch with a contradiction is 'closed' [Bostock] |
| 13761 | In a tableau proof no sequence is established until the final branch is closed; hypotheses are explored [Bostock] |
| 13757 | Unlike natural deduction, semantic tableaux have recipes for proving things [Bostock] |
| 13756 | A tree proof becomes too broad if its only rule is Modus Ponens [Bostock] |
| 13762 | Tableau rules are all elimination rules, gradually shortening formulae [Bostock] |
| 13759 | Each line of a sequent calculus is a conclusion of previous lines, each one explicitly recorded [Bostock] |
| 13760 | A sequent calculus is good for comparing proof systems [Bostock] |
| 13364 | Interpretation by assigning objects to names, or assigning them to variables first [Bostock, by PG] |
| 13821 | Extensionality is built into ordinary logic semantics; names have objects, predicates have sets of objects [Bostock] |
| 13362 | If an object has two names, truth is undisturbed if the names are swapped; this is Extensionality [Bostock] |
| 13541 | For 'negation-consistent', there is never |-(S)φ and |-(S)¬φ [Bostock] |
| 13542 | A proof-system is 'absolutely consistent' iff we don't have |-(S)φ for every formula [Bostock] |
| 13540 | A set of formulae is 'inconsistent' when there is no interpretation which can make them all true [Bostock] |
| 13544 | Inconsistency or entailment just from functors and quantifiers is finitely based, if compact [Bostock] |
| 13618 | Compactness means an infinity of sequents on the left will add nothing new [Bostock] |
| 18125 | Berry's Paradox considers the meaning of 'The least number not named by this name' [Bostock] |
| 18101 | Each addition changes the ordinality but not the cardinality, prior to aleph-1 [Bostock] |
| 18100 | ω + 1 is a new ordinal, but its cardinality is unchanged [Bostock] |
| 18102 | A cardinal is the earliest ordinal that has that number of predecessors [Bostock] |
| 18106 | Aleph-1 is the first ordinal that exceeds aleph-0 [Bostock] |
| 18095 | Instead of by cuts or series convergence, real numbers could be defined by axioms [Bostock] |
| 18099 | The number of reals is the number of subsets of the natural numbers [Bostock] |
| 10632 | The real numbers may be introduced by abstraction as ratios of quantities [Hale, by Hale/Wright] |
| 18093 | For Eudoxus cuts in rationals are unique, but not every cut makes a real number [Bostock] |
| 18110 | Infinitesimals are not actually contradictory, because they can be non-standard real numbers [Bostock] |
| 18156 | Modern axioms of geometry do not need the real numbers [Bostock] |
| 18097 | The Peano Axioms describe a unique structure [Bostock] |
| 13358 | Ordinary or mathematical induction assumes for the first, then always for the next, and hence for all [Bostock] |
| 13359 | Complete induction assumes for all numbers less than n, then also for n, and hence for all numbers [Bostock] |
| 18148 | Hume's Principle is a definition with existential claims, and won't explain numbers [Bostock] |
| 18145 | Many things will satisfy Hume's Principle, so there are many interpretations of it [Bostock] |
| 18149 | There are many criteria for the identity of numbers [Bostock] |
| 18143 | Frege makes numbers sets to solve the Caesar problem, but maybe Caesar is a set! [Bostock] |
| 18116 | Numbers can't be positions, if nothing decides what position a given number has [Bostock] |
| 18117 | Structuralism falsely assumes relations to other numbers are numbers' only properties [Bostock] |
| 18141 | Nominalism about mathematics is either reductionist, or fictionalist [Bostock] |
| 18157 | Nominalism as based on application of numbers is no good, because there are too many applications [Bostock] |
| 18150 | Actual measurement could never require the precision of the real numbers [Bostock] |
| 18158 | Ordinals are mainly used adjectively, as in 'the first', 'the second'... [Bostock] |
| 18127 | Simple type theory has 'levels', but ramified type theory has 'orders' [Bostock] |
| 18144 | Neo-logicists agree that HP introduces number, but also claim that it suffices for the job [Bostock] |
| 19295 | Add Hume's principle to logic, to get numbers; arithmetic truths rest on the nature of the numbers [Hale] |
| 18147 | Neo-logicists meet the Caesar problem by saying Hume's Principle is unique to number [Bostock] |
| 18146 | If Hume's Principle is the whole story, that implies structuralism [Bostock] |
| 18129 | Many crucial logicist definitions are in fact impredicative [Bostock] |
| 18111 | Treating numbers as objects doesn't seem like logic, since arithmetic fixes their totality [Bostock] |
| 18159 | Higher cardinalities in sets are just fairy stories [Bostock] |
| 18155 | A fairy tale may give predictions, but only a true theory can give explanations [Bostock] |
| 18140 | The best version of conceptualism is predicativism [Bostock] |
| 18138 | Conceptualism fails to grasp mathematical properties, infinity, and objective truth values [Bostock] |
| 18131 | If abstracta only exist if they are expressible, there can only be denumerably many of them [Bostock] |
| 18134 | Predicativism makes theories of huge cardinals impossible [Bostock] |
| 18135 | If mathematics rests on science, predicativism may be the best approach [Bostock] |
| 18136 | If we can only think of what we can describe, predicativism may be implied [Bostock] |
| 18132 | The predicativity restriction makes a difference with the real numbers [Bostock] |
| 18133 | The usual definitions of identity and of natural numbers are impredicative [Bostock] |
| 19281 | Interesting supervenience must characterise the base quite differently from what supervenes on it [Hale] |
| 10512 | The abstract/concrete distinction is based on what is perceivable, causal and located [Hale] |
| 10517 | Colours and points seem to be both concrete and abstract [Hale] |
| 10519 | The abstract/concrete distinction is in the relations in the identity-criteria of object-names [Hale] |
| 10520 | Token-letters and token-words are concrete objects, type-letters and type-words abstract [Hale] |
| 10524 | There is a hierarchy of abstraction, based on steps taken by equivalence relations [Hale] |
| 19278 | There is no gap between a fact that p, and it is true that p; so we only have the truth-condtions for p [Hale] |
| 13802 | Relations can be one-many (at most one on the left) or many-one (at most one on the right) [Bostock] |
| 13543 | A relation is not reflexive, just because it is transitive and symmetrical [Bostock] |
| 10318 | Realists take universals to be the referrents of both adjectives and of nouns [Hale] |
| 10521 | If F can't have location, there is no problem of things having F in different locations [Hale] |
| 10511 | It is doubtful if one entity, a universal, can be picked out by both predicates and abstract nouns [Hale] |
| 10310 | Objections to Frege: abstracta are unknowable, non-independent, unstatable, unindividuated [Hale] |
| 10518 | Shapes and directions are of something, but games and musical compositions are not [Hale] |
| 10513 | Many abstract objects, such as chess, seem non-spatial, but are not atemporal [Hale] |
| 10514 | If the mental is non-spatial but temporal, then it must be classified as abstract [Hale] |
| 10523 | Being abstract is based on a relation between things which are spatially separated [Hale] |
| 10307 | The modern Fregean use of the term 'object' is much broader than the ordinary usage [Hale] |
| 10315 | We can't believe in a 'whereabouts' because we ask 'what kind of object is it?' [Hale] |
| 19302 | If a chair could be made of slightly different material, that could lead to big changes [Hale] |
| 10522 | The relations featured in criteria of identity are always equivalence relations [Hale] |
| 10321 | We sometimes apply identity without having a real criterion [Hale] |
| 13847 | If non-existent things are self-identical, they are just one thing - so call it the 'null object' [Bostock] |
| 15086 | Absolute necessity might be achievable either logically or metaphysically [Hale] |
| 19290 | Absolute necessities are necessarily necessary [Hale] |
| 8261 | Maybe not-p is logically possible, but p is metaphysically necessary, so the latter is not absolute [Hale] |
| 15081 | A strong necessity entails a weaker one, but not conversely; possibilities go the other way [Hale] |
| 15080 | 'Relative' necessity is just a logical consequence of some statements ('strong' if they are all true) [Hale] |
| 19286 | 'Absolute necessity' is when there is no restriction on the things which necessitate p [Hale] |
| 19288 | Logical and metaphysical necessities differ in their vocabulary, and their underlying entities [Hale] |
| 15082 | Metaphysical necessity says there is no possibility of falsehood [Hale] |
| 13820 | The idea that anything which can be proved is necessary has a problem with empty names [Bostock] |
| 15085 | 'Broadly' logical necessities are derived (in a structure) entirely from the concepts [Hale] |
| 15088 | Logical necessities are true in virtue of the nature of all logical concepts [Hale] |
| 19285 | Logical necessity is something which is true, no matter what else is the case [Hale] |
| 19287 | Maybe each type of logic has its own necessity, gradually becoming broader [Hale] |
| 12432 | Explanation of necessity must rest on something necessary or something contingent [Hale] |
| 12434 | Why is this necessary, and what is necessity in general; why is this necessary truth true, and why necessary? [Hale] |
| 12435 | The explanation of a necessity can be by a truth (which may only happen to be a necessary truth) [Hale] |
| 19282 | It seems that we cannot show that modal facts depend on non-modal facts [Hale] |
| 12433 | If necessity rests on linguistic conventions, those are contingent, so there is no necessity [Hale] |
| 15087 | Conceptual necessities are made true by all concepts [Hale] |
| 12436 | Concept-identities explain how we know necessities, not why they are necessary [Hale] |
| 19276 | The big challenge for essentialist views of modality is things having necessary existence [Hale] |
| 19293 | Essentialism doesn't explain necessity reductively; it explains all necessities in terms of a few basic natures [Hale] |
| 19294 | If necessity derives from essences, how do we explain the necessary existence of essences? [Hale] |
| 19279 | What are these worlds, that being true in all of them makes something necessary? [Hale] |
| 19299 | Possible worlds make every proposition true or false, which endorses classical logic [Hale] |
| 14644 | If my conception of pain derives from me, it is a contradiction to speak of another's pain [Malcolm] |
| 19300 | The molecules may explain the water, but they are not what 'water' means [Hale] |
| 13363 | A (modern) predicate is the result of leaving a gap for the name in a sentence [Bostock] |
| 18121 | In logic a proposition means the same when it is and when it is not asserted [Bostock] |
| 1422 | God's existence is either necessary or impossible, and no one has shown that the concept of God is contradictory [Malcolm] |