17 ideas
14239 | The empty set is usually derived from Separation, but it also seems to need Infinity [Oliver/Smiley] |
14240 | The empty set is something, not nothing! [Oliver/Smiley] |
14241 | We don't need the empty set to express non-existence, as there are other ways to do that [Oliver/Smiley] |
14242 | Maybe we can treat the empty set symbol as just meaning an empty term [Oliver/Smiley] |
14243 | The unit set may be needed to express intersections that leave a single member [Oliver/Smiley] |
13831 | Logic is based on transitions between sentences [Prawitz] |
13827 | Logical consequence isn't a black box (Tarski's approach); we should explain how arguments work [Prawitz] |
13825 | Natural deduction introduction rules may represent 'definitions' of logical connectives [Prawitz] |
14234 | If you only refer to objects one at a time, you need sets in order to refer to a plurality [Oliver/Smiley] |
14237 | We can use plural language to refer to the set theory domain, to avoid calling it a 'set' [Oliver/Smiley] |
13823 | In natural deduction, inferences are atomic steps involving just one logical constant [Prawitz] |
14245 | Logical truths are true no matter what exists - but predicate calculus insists that something exists [Oliver/Smiley] |
13826 | Model theory looks at valid sentences and consequence, but not how we know these things [Prawitz] |
21554 | Sets always exceed terms, so all the sets must exceed all the sets [Lackey] |
21553 | It seems that the ordinal number of all the ordinals must be bigger than itself [Lackey] |
14246 | If mathematics purely concerned mathematical objects, there would be no applied mathematics [Oliver/Smiley] |
14247 | Sets might either represent the numbers, or be the numbers, or replace the numbers [Oliver/Smiley] |