173 ideas
| 18137 | Impredicative definitions are wrong, because they change the set that is being defined? [Bostock] |
| 18019 | People have dreams which involve category mistakes [Magidor] |
| 17998 | Category mistakes are either syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic [Magidor] |
| 18011 | Category mistakes seem to be universal across languages [Magidor] |
| 18012 | Category mistakes as syntactic needs a huge number of fine-grained rules [Magidor] |
| 18013 | Embedded (in 'he said that…') category mistakes show syntax isn't the problem [Magidor] |
| 18021 | Category mistakes are meaningful, because metaphors are meaningful category mistakes [Magidor] |
| 18015 | The normal compositional view makes category mistakes meaningful [Magidor] |
| 18017 | If a category mistake is synonymous across two languages, that implies it is meaningful [Magidor] |
| 18031 | If a category mistake has unimaginable truth-conditions, then it seems to be meaningless [Magidor] |
| 18016 | Two good sentences should combine to make a good sentence, but that might be absurd [Magidor] |
| 18030 | A good explanation of why category mistakes sound wrong is that they are meaningless [Magidor] |
| 18032 | Category mistakes are neither verifiable nor analytic, so verificationism says they are meaningless [Magidor] |
| 18034 | Category mistakes play no role in mental life, so conceptual role semantics makes them meaningless [Magidor] |
| 18037 | Maybe when you say 'two is green', the predicate somehow fails to apply? [Magidor] |
| 18039 | If category mistakes aren't syntax failure or meaningless, maybe they just lack a truth-value? [Magidor] |
| 18058 | Maybe the presuppositions of category mistakes are the abilities of things? [Magidor] |
| 18041 | Category mistakes suffer from pragmatic presupposition failure (which is not mere triviality) [Magidor] |
| 18056 | Category mistakes because of presuppositions still have a truth value (usually 'false') [Magidor] |
| 18055 | In 'two is green', 'green' has a presupposition of being coloured [Magidor] |
| 18057 | 'Numbers are coloured and the number two is green' seems to be acceptable [Magidor] |
| 18059 | The presuppositions in category mistakes reveal nothing about ontology [Magidor] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 18040 | Intensional logic maps logical space, showing which predicates are compatible or incompatible [Magidor] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 13616 | The Deduction Theorem greatly simplifies the search for proof [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] |
| 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] |
| 18120 | The Deduction Theorem is what licenses a system of natural deduction [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] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 17997 | Some suggest that the Julius Caesar problem involves category mistakes [Magidor] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 13543 | A relation is not reflexive, just because it is transitive and symmetrical [Bostock] |
| 13802 | Relations can be one-many (at most one on the left) or many-one (at most one on the right) [Bostock] |
| 18060 | We can explain the statue/clay problem by a category mistake with a false premise [Magidor] |
| 13847 | If non-existent things are self-identical, they are just one thing - so call it the 'null object' [Bostock] |
| 13820 | The idea that anything which can be proved is necessary has a problem with empty names [Bostock] |
| 18020 | Propositional attitudes relate agents to either propositions, or meanings, or sentence/utterances [Magidor] |
| 18035 | Two sentences with different meanings can, on occasion, have the same content [Magidor] |
| 18018 | To grasp 'two' and 'green', must you know that two is not green? [Magidor] |
| 18008 | Generative semantics says structure is determined by semantics as well as syntactic rules [Magidor] |
| 18010 | 'John is easy to please' and 'John is eager to please' have different deep structure [Magidor] |
| 18053 | The semantics of a sentence is its potential for changing a context [Magidor] |
| 13363 | A (modern) predicate is the result of leaving a gap for the name in a sentence [Bostock] |
| 18000 | Weaker compositionality says meaningful well-formed sentences get the meaning from the parts [Magidor] |
| 17999 | Strong compositionality says meaningful expressions syntactically well-formed are meaningful [Magidor] |
| 18014 | Understanding unlimited numbers of sentences suggests that meaning is compositional [Magidor] |
| 18001 | Are there partial propositions, lacking truth value in some possible worlds? [Magidor] |
| 18121 | In logic a proposition means the same when it is and when it is not asserted [Bostock] |
| 18036 | A sentence can be meaningful, and yet lack a truth value [Magidor] |
| 18051 | In the pragmatic approach, presuppositions are assumed in a context, for successful assertion [Magidor] |
| 18043 | The infelicitiousness of trivial truth is explained by uninformativeness, or a static context-set [Magidor] |
| 18042 | The infelicitiousness of trivial falsity is explained by expectations, or the loss of a context-set [Magidor] |
| 18047 | A presupposition is what makes an utterance sound wrong if it is not assumed? [Magidor] |
| 18048 | A test for presupposition would be if it provoked 'hey wait a minute - I have no idea that....' [Magidor] |
| 18049 | The best tests for presupposition are projecting it to negation, conditional, conjunction, questions [Magidor] |
| 18050 | If both s and not-s entail a sentence p, then p is a presupposition [Magidor] |
| 18054 | Why do certain words trigger presuppositions? [Magidor] |
| 18024 | One theory says metaphors mean the same as the corresponding simile [Magidor] |
| 18023 | Theories of metaphor divide over whether they must have literal meanings [Magidor] |
| 18025 | The simile view of metaphors removes their magic, and won't explain why we use them [Magidor] |
| 18026 | Maybe a metaphor is just a substitute for what is intended literally, like 'icy' for 'unemotional' [Magidor] |
| 18028 | Gricean theories of metaphor involve conversational implicatures based on literal meanings [Magidor] |
| 18029 | Non-cognitivist views of metaphor says there are no metaphorical meanings, just effects of the literal [Magidor] |
| 18022 | Metaphors tend to involve category mistakes, by joining disjoint domains [Magidor] |
| 18027 | Metaphors as substitutes for the literal misses one predicate varying with context [Magidor] |
| 6011 | There is a remote first god (the Good), and a second god who organises the material world [Numenius, by O'Meara] |