more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 10093

[filed under theme 6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 6. Logicism / b. Type theory ]

Full Idea

Russell and Whitehead's ramified theory of types worked not with sets, but with propositional functions (similar to Frege's concepts), with a more restrictive assignment of variables, insisting that bound, as well as free, variables be of lower type.

Gist of Idea

The ramified theory of types used propositional functions, and covered bound variables

Source

report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.3

Book Ref

George,A/Velleman D.J.: 'Philosophies of Mathematics' [Blackwell 2002], p.47


A Reaction

I don't fully understand this (and no one seems much interested any more), but I think variables are a key notion, and there is something interesting going on here. I am intrigued by ordinary language which behaves like variables.


The 23 ideas with the same theme [theory that maths is a hierarchy of set types]:

Frege's logic has a hierarchy of object, property, property-of-property etc. [Frege, by Smith,P]
The ramified theory of types used propositional functions, and covered bound variables [Russell/Whitehead, by George/Velleman]
The Russell/Whitehead type theory was limited, and was not really logic [Friend on Russell/Whitehead]
For 'x is a u' to be meaningful, u must be one range of individuals (or 'type') higher than x [Russell]
In 'x is a u', x and u must be of different types, so 'x is an x' is generally meaningless [Russell, by Magidor]
Type theory cannot identify features across levels (because such predicates break the rules) [Morris,M on Russell]
Classes are defined by propositional functions, and functions are typed, with an axiom of reducibility [Russell, by Lackey]
Type theory seems an extreme reaction, since self-exemplification is often innocuous [Swoyer on Russell]
Russell's improvements blocked mathematics as well as paradoxes, and needed further axioms [Russell, by Musgrave]
Type theory means that features shared by different levels cannot be expressed [Morris,M on Russell]
The 'simple theory of types' distinguishes levels among properties [Ramsey, by Grayling]
Russell confused use and mention, and reduced classes to properties, not to language [Quine, by Lackey]
Simple type theory has 'levels', but ramified type theory has 'orders' [Bostock]
Chihara's system is a variant of type theory, from which he can translate sentences [Chihara, by Shapiro]
We can replace type theory with open sentences and a constructibility quantifier [Chihara, by Shapiro]
Types are 'ramified' when there are further differences between the type of quantifier and its range [Linsky,B]
The ramified theory subdivides each type, according to the range of the variables [Linsky,B]
Higher types are needed to distinguished intensional phenomena which are coextensive [Linsky,B]
In the unramified theory of types, the types are objects, then sets of objects, sets of sets etc. [George/Velleman]
The theory of types seems to rule out harmless sets as well as paradoxical ones. [George/Velleman]
Type theory has only finitely many items at each level, which is a problem for mathematics [George/Velleman]
Type theory prohibits (oddly) a set containing an individual and a set of individuals [George/Velleman]
Set theory was liberated early from types, and recent truth-theories are exploring type-free [Halbach]