display all the ideas for this combination of texts
8 ideas
13520 | A 'tautology' must include connectives [Wolf,RS] |
Full Idea: 'For every number x, x = x' is not a tautology, because it includes no connectives. | |
From: Robert S. Wolf (A Tour through Mathematical Logic [2005], 1.2) |
13524 | Deduction Theorem: T∪{P}|-Q, then T|-(P→Q), which justifies Conditional Proof [Wolf,RS] |
Full Idea: Deduction Theorem: If T ∪ {P} |- Q, then T |- (P → Q). This is the formal justification of the method of conditional proof (CPP). Its converse holds, and is essentially modus ponens. | |
From: Robert S. Wolf (A Tour through Mathematical Logic [2005], 1.3) |
13522 | Universal Generalization: If we prove P(x) with no special assumptions, we can conclude ∀xP(x) [Wolf,RS] |
Full Idea: Universal Generalization: If we can prove P(x), only assuming what sort of object x is, we may conclude ∀xP(x) for the same x. | |
From: Robert S. Wolf (A Tour through Mathematical Logic [2005], 1.3) | |
A reaction: This principle needs watching closely. If you pick one person in London, with no presuppositions, and it happens to be a woman, can you conclude that all the people in London are women? Fine in logic and mathematics, suspect in life. |
13521 | Universal Specification: ∀xP(x) implies P(t). True for all? Then true for an instance [Wolf,RS] |
Full Idea: Universal Specification: from ∀xP(x) we may conclude P(t), where t is an appropriate term. If something is true for all members of a domain, then it is true for some particular one that we specify. | |
From: Robert S. Wolf (A Tour through Mathematical Logic [2005], 1.3) |
13523 | Existential Generalization (or 'proof by example'): if we can say P(t), then we can say something is P [Wolf,RS] |
Full Idea: Existential Generalization (or 'proof by example'): From P(t), where t is an appropriate term, we may conclude ∃xP(x). | |
From: Robert S. Wolf (A Tour through Mathematical Logic [2005], 1.3) | |
A reaction: It is amazing how often this vacuous-sounding principles finds itself being employed in discussions of ontology, but I don't quite understand why. |
13529 | Empty Set: ∃x∀y ¬(y∈x). The unique empty set exists [Wolf,RS] |
Full Idea: Empty Set Axiom: ∃x ∀y ¬ (y ∈ x). There is a set x which has no members (no y's). The empty set exists. There is a set with no members, and by extensionality this set is unique. | |
From: Robert S. Wolf (A Tour through Mathematical Logic [2005], 2.3) | |
A reaction: A bit bewildering for novices. It says there is a box with nothing in it, or a pair of curly brackets with nothing between them. It seems to be the key idea in set theory, because it asserts the idea of a set over and above any possible members. |
13526 | Comprehension Axiom: if a collection is clearly specified, it is a set [Wolf,RS] |
Full Idea: The comprehension axiom says that any collection of objects that can be clearly specified can be considered to be a set. | |
From: Robert S. Wolf (A Tour through Mathematical Logic [2005], 2.2) | |
A reaction: This is virtually tautological, since I presume that 'clearly specified' means pinning down exact which items are the members, which is what a set is (by extensionality). The naïve version is, of course, not so hot. |
8972 | What in the real world could ground the distinction between the sets {A,{A,B}} and {B,{A,B}}? [Inwagen] |
Full Idea: Nothing in the world of nominalistically acceptable things could ground or explain the non-identity of the set {A,{A,B}} with the set {B,{A,B}}. | |
From: Peter van Inwagen (Existence,Ontological Commitment and Fictions [2003], p.154) | |
A reaction: [He cites Goodman for this thought] Van Inwagen is offering this to show that the existence of sets is abstract, whereas Goodman was denying the existence of sets altogether. I'm with Goodman. Nice example. |