81 ideas
| 9724 | Until the 1960s the only semantics was truth-tables [Enderton] |
| 9703 | 'dom R' indicates the 'domain' of objects having a relation [Enderton] |
| 9705 | 'fld R' indicates the 'field' of all objects in the relation [Enderton] |
| 9704 | 'ran R' indicates the 'range' of objects being related to [Enderton] |
| 9710 | We write F:A→B to indicate that A maps into B (the output of F on A is in B) [Enderton] |
| 9707 | 'F(x)' is the unique value which F assumes for a value of x [Enderton] |
| 13201 | ∈ says the whole set is in the other; ⊆ says the members of the subset are in the other [Enderton] |
| 9712 | A relation is 'symmetric' on a set if every ordered pair has the relation in both directions [Enderton] |
| 9713 | A relation is 'transitive' if it can be carried over from two ordered pairs to a third [Enderton] |
| 13204 | The 'ordered pair' <x,y> is defined to be {{x}, {x,y}} [Enderton] |
| 13206 | A 'linear or total ordering' must be transitive and satisfy trichotomy [Enderton] |
| 9699 | The 'powerset' of a set is all the subsets of a given set [Enderton] |
| 9700 | Two sets are 'disjoint' iff their intersection is empty [Enderton] |
| 9702 | A 'domain' of a relation is the set of members of ordered pairs in the relation [Enderton] |
| 9701 | A 'relation' is a set of ordered pairs [Enderton] |
| 9706 | A 'function' is a relation in which each object is related to just one other object [Enderton] |
| 9708 | A function 'maps A into B' if the relating things are set A, and the things related to are all in B [Enderton] |
| 9709 | A function 'maps A onto B' if the relating things are set A, and the things related to are set B [Enderton] |
| 9711 | A relation is 'reflexive' on a set if every member bears the relation to itself [Enderton] |
| 9714 | A relation satisfies 'trichotomy' if all pairs are either relations, or contain identical objects [Enderton] |
| 9717 | A set is 'dominated' by another if a one-to-one function maps the first set into a subset of the second [Enderton] |
| 13200 | Note that {Φ} =/= Φ, because Φ ∈ {Φ} but Φ ∉ Φ [Enderton] |
| 13199 | The empty set may look pointless, but many sets can be constructed from it [Enderton] |
| 13203 | The singleton is defined using the pairing axiom (as {x,x}) [Enderton] |
| 9715 | An 'equivalence relation' is a reflexive, symmetric and transitive binary relation [Enderton] |
| 9716 | We 'partition' a set into distinct subsets, according to each relation on its objects [Enderton] |
| 13202 | Fraenkel added Replacement, to give a theory of ordinal numbers [Enderton] |
| 13205 | We can only define functions if Choice tells us which items are involved [Enderton] |
| 9722 | Inference not from content, but from the fact that it was said, is 'conversational implicature' [Enderton] |
| 9718 | Validity is either semantic (what preserves truth), or proof-theoretic (following procedures) [Enderton] |
| 9721 | A logical truth or tautology is a logical consequence of the empty set [Enderton] |
| 9994 | A truth assignment to the components of a wff 'satisfy' it if the wff is then True [Enderton] |
| 9719 | A proof theory is 'sound' if its valid inferences entail semantic validity [Enderton] |
| 9720 | A proof theory is 'complete' if semantically valid inferences entail proof-theoretic validity [Enderton] |
| 9995 | Proof in finite subsets is sufficient for proof in an infinite set [Enderton] |
| 17867 | If a concept is not compact, it will not be presentable to finite minds [Almog] |
| 9996 | Expressions are 'decidable' if inclusion in them (or not) can be proved [Enderton] |
| 9997 | For a reasonable language, the set of valid wff's can always be enumerated [Enderton] |
| 9935 | Mathematical truth is always compromising between ordinary language and sensible epistemology [Benacerraf] |
| 13412 | Obtaining numbers by abstraction is impossible - there are too many; only a rule could give them, in order [Benacerraf] |
| 13413 | We must explain how we know so many numbers, and recognise ones we haven't met before [Benacerraf] |
| 9912 | There are no such things as numbers [Benacerraf] |
| 9901 | Numbers can't be sets if there is no agreement on which sets they are [Benacerraf] |
| 13411 | If numbers are basically the cardinals (Frege-Russell view) you could know some numbers in isolation [Benacerraf] |
| 9151 | Benacerraf says numbers are defined by their natural ordering [Benacerraf, by Fine,K] |
| 17877 | The number series is primitive, not the result of some set theoretic axioms [Almog] |
| 13891 | To understand finite cardinals, it is necessary and sufficient to understand progressions [Benacerraf, by Wright,C] |
| 17904 | A set has k members if it one-one corresponds with the numbers less than or equal to k [Benacerraf] |
| 17906 | To explain numbers you must also explain cardinality, the counting of things [Benacerraf] |
| 9898 | We can count intransitively (reciting numbers) without understanding transitive counting of items [Benacerraf] |
| 17903 | Someone can recite numbers but not know how to count things; but not vice versa [Benacerraf] |
| 9897 | The application of a system of numbers is counting and measurement [Benacerraf] |
| 9900 | For Zermelo 3 belongs to 17, but for Von Neumann it does not [Benacerraf] |
| 9899 | The successor of x is either x and all its members, or just the unit set of x [Benacerraf] |
| 8697 | Disputes about mathematical objects seem irrelevant, and mathematicians cannot resolve them [Benacerraf, by Friend] |
| 8304 | No particular pair of sets can tell us what 'two' is, just by one-to-one correlation [Benacerraf, by Lowe] |
| 9906 | If ordinal numbers are 'reducible to' some set-theory, then which is which? [Benacerraf] |
| 13415 | An adequate account of a number must relate it to its series [Benacerraf] |
| 9907 | If any recursive sequence will explain ordinals, then it seems to be the structure which matters [Benacerraf] |
| 9908 | The job is done by the whole system of numbers, so numbers are not objects [Benacerraf] |
| 9909 | The number 3 defines the role of being third in a progression [Benacerraf] |
| 9911 | Number words no more have referents than do the parts of a ruler [Benacerraf] |
| 8925 | Mathematical objects only have properties relating them to other 'elements' of the same structure [Benacerraf] |
| 9938 | How can numbers be objects if order is their only property? [Benacerraf, by Putnam] |
| 9910 | Number-as-objects works wholesale, but fails utterly object by object [Benacerraf] |
| 17927 | Realists have semantics without epistemology, anti-realists epistemology but bad semantics [Benacerraf, by Colyvan] |
| 9936 | The platonist view of mathematics doesn't fit our epistemology very well [Benacerraf] |
| 9903 | Number words are not predicates, as they function very differently from adjectives [Benacerraf] |
| 9904 | The set-theory paradoxes mean that 17 can't be the class of all classes with 17 members [Benacerraf] |
| 17872 | Definitionalists rely on snapshot-concepts, instead of on the real processes [Almog] |
| 17871 | Fregean meanings are analogous to conceptual essence, defining a kind [Almog] |
| 17866 | Essential definition aims at existence conditions and structural truths [Almog] |
| 17868 | Surface accounts aren't exhaustive as they always allow unintended twin cases [Almog] |
| 17870 | Alien 'tigers' can't be tigers if they are not related to our tigers [Almog] |
| 17869 | Kripke and Putnam offer an intermediary between real and nominal essences [Almog] |
| 17876 | Individual essences are just cobbled together classificatory predicates [Almog] |
| 9905 | Identity statements make sense only if there are possible individuating conditions [Benacerraf] |
| 9723 | Sentences with 'if' are only conditionals if they can read as A-implies-B [Enderton] |
| 17873 | Water must be related to water, just as tigers must be related to tigers [Almog] |
| 17864 | Defining an essence comes no where near giving a thing's nature [Almog] |
| 17863 | Essences promise to reveal reality, but actually drive us away from it [Almog] |