display all the ideas for this combination of texts
18 ideas
| 13500 | Conditional Proof: infer a conditional, if the consequent can be deduced from the antecedent [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: A 'conditional proof' licenses inferences to a conditional from a deduction of its consequent from its antecedent. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 4) | |
| A reaction: That is, a proof can be enshrined in an arrow. |
| 13502 | ∃y... is read as 'There exists an individual, call it y, such that...', and not 'There exists a y such that...' [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: When a quantifier is attached to a variable, as in '∃(y)....', then it should be read as 'There exists an individual, call it y, such that....'. One should not read it as 'There exists a y such that...', which would attach predicate to quantifier. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 4) | |
| A reaction: The point is to make clear that in classical logic the predicates attach to the objects, and not to some formal component like a quantifier. |
| 13456 | Set theory articulates the concept of order (through relations) [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: It is set theory, and more specifically the theory of relations, that articulates order. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010]) | |
| A reaction: It would seem that we mainly need set theory in order to talk accurately about order, and about infinity. The two come together in the study of the ordinal numbers. |
| 13497 | Nowadays ZFC and NBG are the set theories; types are dead, and NF is only useful for the whole universe [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: The theory of types is a thing of the past. There is now nothing to choose between ZFC and NBG (Neumann-Bernays-Gödel). NF (Quine's) is a more specialized taste, but is a place to look if you want the universe. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 3) |
| 13443 | ∈ relates across layers, while ⊆ relates within layers [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: ∈ relates across layers (Plato is a member of his unit set and the set of people), while ⊆ relates within layers (the singleton of Plato is a subset of the set of people). This distinction only became clear in the 19th century. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 1) | |
| A reaction: Getting these two clear may be the most important distinction needed to understand how set theory works. |
| 13442 | Without the empty set we could not form a∩b without checking that a and b meet [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: Without the empty set, disjoint sets would have no intersection, and we could not form a∩b without checking that a and b meet. This is an example of the utility of the empty set. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 1) | |
| A reaction: A novice might plausibly ask why there should be an intersection for every pair of sets, if they have nothing in common except for containing this little puff of nothingness. But then what do novices know? |
| 13493 | In the modern view, foundation is the heart of the way to do set theory [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: In the second half of the twentieth century there emerged the opinion that foundation is the heart of the way to do set theory. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 3) | |
| A reaction: It is foundation which is the central axiom of the iterative conception of sets, where each level of sets is built on previous levels, and they are all 'well-founded'. |
| 13495 | Foundation Axiom: an nonempty set has a member disjoint from it [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: The usual statement of Foundation is that any nonempty set has a member disjoint from it. This phrasing is ordinal-free and closer to the primitives of ZFC. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 3) |
| 13461 | We can choose from finite and evident sets, but not from infinite opaque ones [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: When a set is finite, we can prove it has a choice function (∀x x∈A → f(x)∈A), but we need an axiom when A is infinite and the members opaque. From infinite shoes we can pick a left one, but from socks we need the axiom of choice. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 1) | |
| A reaction: The socks example in from Russell 1919:126. |
| 13462 | With the Axiom of Choice every set can be well-ordered [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: It follows from the Axiom of Choice that every set can be well-ordered. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 1) | |
| A reaction: For 'well-ordered' see Idea 13460. Every set can be ordered with a least member. |
| 13516 | If we accept that V=L, it seems to settle all the open questions of set theory [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: It has been said (by Burt Dreben) that the only reason set theorists do not generally buy the view that V = L is that it would put them out of business by settling their open questions. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 10) | |
| A reaction: Hart says V=L breaks with the interative conception of sets at level ω+1, which is countable is the constructible view, but has continuum many in the cumulative (iterative) hierarch. The constructible V=L view is anti-platonist. |
| 13441 | Naïve set theory has trouble with comprehension, the claim that every predicate has an extension [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: 'Comprehension' is the assumption that every predicate has an extension. Naïve set theory is the theory whose axioms are extensionality and comprehension, and comprehension is thought to be its naivety. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 1) | |
| A reaction: This doesn't, of course, mean that there couldn't be a more modest version of comprehension. The notorious difficulty come with the discovery of self-referring predicates which can't possibly have extensions. |
| 13494 | The iterative conception may not be necessary, and may have fixed points or infinitely descending chains [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: That the iterative sets suffice for most of ZFC does not show they are necessary, nor is it evident that the set of operations has no fixed points (as 0 is a fixed point for square-of), and no infinitely descending chains (like negative integers). | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 3) | |
| A reaction: People don't seem to worry that they aren't 'necessary', and further measures are possible to block infinitely descending chains. |
| 13457 | A 'partial ordering' is irreflexive and transitive; the sets are ordered, but not the subsets [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: We say that a binary relation R 'partially orders' a field A just in case R is irreflexive (so that nothing bears R to itself) and transitive. When the set is {a,b}, its subsets {a} and {b} are incomparable in a partial ordering. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 1) |
| 13458 | A partial ordering becomes 'total' if any two members of its field are comparable [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: A partial ordering is a 'total ordering' just in case any two members of its field are comparable, that is, either a is R to b, or b is R to a, or a is b. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 1) | |
| A reaction: See Idea 13457 for 'partial ordering'. The three conditions are known as the 'trichotomy' condition. |
| 13460 | 'Well-ordering' must have a least member, so it does the natural numbers but not the integers [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: A total order 'well-orders' its field just in case any nonempty subset B of its field has an R-least member, that is, there is a b in B such that for any a in B different from b, b bears R to a. So less-than well-orders natural numbers, but not integers. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 1) | |
| A reaction: The natural numbers have a starting point, but the integers are infinite in both directions. In plain English, an order is 'well-ordered' if there is a starting point. |
| 13490 | Von Neumann defines α<β as α∈β [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: One of the glories of Von Neumann's theory of numbers is to define α < β to mean that α ∈ β. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 3) |
| 13481 | Maybe sets should be rethought in terms of the even more basic categories [Hart,WD] |
| Full Idea: Some have claimed that sets should be rethought in terms of still more basic things, categories. | |
| From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 2) | |
| A reaction: [He cites F.William Lawvere 1966] It appears to the the context of foundations for mathematics that he has in mind. |