back to ideas for this text


Single Idea 13348

[from 'Intermediate Logic' by David Bostock, in 5. Theory of Logic / B. Logical Consequence / 4. Semantic Consequence |= ]

Full Idea

In practice we avoid quotation marks and explicitly set-theoretic notation that explaining |= as 'entails' appears to demand. Hence it seems more natural to explain |= as simply representing the word 'therefore'.

Gist of Idea

It seems more natural to express |= as 'therefore', rather than 'entails'

Source

David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 1.3)

Book Reference

Bostock,David: 'Intermediate Logic' [OUP 1997], p.10


A Reaction

Not sure I quite understand that, but I have trained myself to say 'therefore' for the generic use of |=. In other consequences it seems better to read it as 'semantic consequence', to distinguish it from |-.

Related Idea

Idea 13623 The syntactic turnstile |- φ means 'there is a proof of φ' or 'φ is a theorem' [Bostock]