Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Essays on Intellectual Powers: Conception', 'The Philosophy of Mathematics' and 'Which Logic is the Right Logic?'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


3 ideas

4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / a. Axioms for sets
ZF set theory has variables which range over sets, 'equals' and 'member', and extensionality [Dummett]
     Full Idea: ZF set theory is a first-order axiomatization. Variables range over sets, there are no second-order variables, and primitive predicates are just 'equals' and 'member of'. The axiom of extensionality says sets with the same members are identical.
     From: Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 7)
     A reaction: If the eleven members of the cricket team are the same as the eleven members of the hockey team, is the cricket team the same as the hockey team? Our cricket team is better than our hockey team, so different predicates apply to them.
The main alternative to ZF is one which includes looser classes as well as sets [Dummett]
     Full Idea: The main alternative to ZF is two-sorted theories, with some variables ranging over classes. Classes have more generous existence assumptions: there is a universal class, containing all sets, and a class containing all ordinals. Classes are not members.
     From: Michael Dummett (The Philosophy of Mathematics [1998], 7.1.1)
     A reaction: My intuition is to prefer strict systems when it comes to logical theories. The whole point is precision. Otherwise we could just think about things, and skip all this difficult symbolic stuff.
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / j. Axiom of Choice IX
The axiom of choice now seems acceptable and obvious (if it is meaningful) [Tharp]
     Full Idea: The main objection to the axiom of choice was that it had to be given by some law or definition, but since sets are arbitrary this seems irrelevant. Formalists consider it meaningless, but set-theorists consider it as true, and practically obvious.
     From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §3)