more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 17241

[filed under theme 2. Reason / D. Definition / 8. Impredicative Definition ]

Full Idea

A defined name ought not to be repeated in the definition. ...No total can be part of itself.

Gist of Idea

A defined name should not appear in the definition

Source

Thomas Hobbes (De Corpore (Elements, First Section) [1655], 1.6.15)

Book Ref

Hobbes,Thomas: 'Metaphysical Writings', ed/tr. Calkins,Mary Whiton [Open Court 1905], p.36


The 9 ideas with the same theme [definition that doesn't introduce a new concept]:

A defined name should not appear in the definition [Hobbes]
Predicative definitions are acceptable in mathematics if they distinguish objects, rather than creating them? [Zermelo, by Lavine]
Impredicative Definitions refer to the totality to which the object itself belongs [Gödel]
Impredicative definitions are wrong, because they change the set that is being defined? [Bostock]
'Impredictative' definitions fix a class in terms of the greater class to which it belongs [Linsky,B]
Impredicative definitions quantify over the thing being defined [George/Velleman]
Impredicative definitions are circular, but fine for picking out, rather than creating something [Potter]
An 'impredicative' definition seems circular, because it uses the term being defined [Friend]
Predicative definitions only refer to entities outside the defined collection [Horsten]