64 ideas
| 17774 | Definitions make our intuitions mathematically useful [Mayberry] |
| 17773 | Proof shows that it is true, but also why it must be true [Mayberry] |
| 17795 | Set theory can't be axiomatic, because it is needed to express the very notion of axiomatisation [Mayberry] |
| 17796 | There is a semi-categorical axiomatisation of set-theory [Mayberry] |
| 17800 | The misnamed Axiom of Infinity says the natural numbers are finite in size [Mayberry] |
| 17801 | The set hierarchy doesn't rely on the dubious notion of 'generating' them [Mayberry] |
| 17803 | Limitation of size is part of the very conception of a set [Mayberry] |
| 17786 | The mainstream of modern logic sees it as a branch of mathematics [Mayberry] |
| 17788 | First-order logic only has its main theorems because it is so weak [Mayberry] |
| 17791 | Only second-order logic can capture mathematical structure up to isomorphism [Mayberry] |
| 17787 | Big logic has one fixed domain, but standard logic has a domain for each interpretation [Mayberry] |
| 17790 | No Löwenheim-Skolem logic can axiomatise real analysis [Mayberry] |
| 17779 | 'Classificatory' axioms aim at revealing similarity in morphology of structures [Mayberry] |
| 17778 | Axiomatiation relies on isomorphic structures being essentially the same [Mayberry] |
| 17780 | 'Eliminatory' axioms get rid of traditional ideal and abstract objects [Mayberry] |
| 17789 | No logic which can axiomatise arithmetic can be compact or complete [Mayberry] |
| 17784 | Real numbers can be eliminated, by axiom systems for complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
| 17782 | Greek quantities were concrete, and ratio and proportion were their science [Mayberry] |
| 17781 | Real numbers were invented, as objects, to simplify and generalise 'quantity' [Mayberry] |
| 17799 | Cantor's infinite is an absolute, of all the sets or all the ordinal numbers [Mayberry] |
| 17797 | Cantor extended the finite (rather than 'taming the infinite') [Mayberry] |
| 17775 | If proof and definition are central, then mathematics needs and possesses foundations [Mayberry] |
| 17776 | The ultimate principles and concepts of mathematics are presumed, or grasped directly [Mayberry] |
| 17777 | Foundations need concepts, definition rules, premises, and proof rules [Mayberry] |
| 17804 | Axiom theories can't give foundations for mathematics - that's using axioms to explain axioms [Mayberry] |
| 17792 | 1st-order PA is only interesting because of results which use 2nd-order PA [Mayberry] |
| 17793 | It is only 2nd-order isomorphism which suggested first-order PA completeness [Mayberry] |
| 17794 | Set theory is not just first-order ZF, because that is inadequate for mathematics [Mayberry] |
| 17802 | We don't translate mathematics into set theory, because it comes embodied in that way [Mayberry] |
| 17805 | Set theory is not just another axiomatised part of mathematics [Mayberry] |
| 10197 | An immanent universal is wholly present in more than one place [Zimmerman,DW] |
| 17785 | Real numbers as abstracted objects are now treated as complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
| 10198 | If only two indiscernible electrons exist, future differences must still be possible [Zimmerman,DW] |
| 10199 | Discernible differences at different times may just be in counterparts [Zimmerman,DW] |
| 23590 | Criminal responsibility can be fully assigned to each member of a group [Walzer] |
| 23578 | Double Effect needs a double intention - to achieve the good, and minimise the evil [Walzer] |
| 23564 | Deep ethical theory is very controversial, but we have to live with higher ethical practice [Walzer] |
| 20595 | You can't distribute goods from behind a veil, because their social meaning is unclear [Walzer, by Tuckness/Wolf] |
| 20592 | Complex equality restricts equalities from spilling over, like money influencing politics and law [Walzer, by Tuckness/Wolf] |
| 20549 | Equality is complex, with different spheres of equality where different principles apply [Walzer, by Swift] |
| 23568 | If whole states possess rights, there can be social relations between states [Walzer] |
| 23571 | States can rightly pre-empt real and serious threats [Walzer] |
| 23572 | Just wars are self-defence, or a rightful intercession in another's troubles [Walzer] |
| 23581 | The aim of reprisals is to enforce the rules of war [Walzer] |
| 23582 | Reprisal is defensible, as an alternative to war [Walzer] |
| 23588 | With nuclear weapons we have a permanent supreme emergency (which is unstable) [Walzer] |
| 23580 | States need not endure attacks passively, and successful reprisals are legitimate [Walzer] |
| 23587 | Nuclear bombs are not for normal war; they undermine the 'just war', with a new morality [Walzer] |
| 23567 | Even non-violent intrusive acts between states count as aggression, if they justify resistance [Walzer] |
| 23570 | The only good reason for fighting is in defence of rights [Walzer] |
| 23573 | For moral reasons, a just war must be a limited war [Walzer] |
| 23577 | Napoleon said 'I don't care about the deaths of a million men' [Walzer] |
| 23593 | Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello are independent; unjust wars can be fought in a just way [Walzer] |
| 23574 | The duties and moral status of loyal and obedient soldiers is the same in defence and aggression [Walzer] |
| 23575 | We can't blame soldiers for anything they do which clearly promotes victory [Walzer] |
| 23584 | Rejecting Combatant Equality allows just soldiers to be harsher, even to the extreme [Walzer] |
| 23589 | Kidnapped sailors and volunteers have different obligations to the passengers [Walzer] |
| 23614 | Even aggressor soldiers are not criminals, so they have equal rights with their opponents [Walzer] |
| 23579 | Soldiers will only protect civilians if they feel safe from them [Walzer] |
| 23586 | What matters in war is unacceptable targets, not unacceptable weapons [Walzer] |
| 23591 | If the oppressor is cruel, nonviolence is either surrender, or a mere gesture [Walzer] |
| 23592 | We can only lead war towards peace if we firmly enforce the rules of war [Walzer] |
| 14610 | Neither 'moving spotlight' nor 'growing block' views explain why we care what is present or past [Zimmerman,DW] |
| 14608 | A-theorists, unlike B-theorists, believe some sort of objective distinction between past, present and future [Zimmerman,DW] |