display all the ideas for this combination of texts
3 ideas
10048 | There is no clear boundary between the logical and the non-logical [Tarski] |
Full Idea: No objective grounds are known to me which permit us to draw a sharp boundary between the two groups of terms, the logical and the non-logical. | |
From: Alfred Tarski (works [1936]), quoted by Alan Musgrave - Logicism Revisited §3 | |
A reaction: Musgrave is pointing out that this is bad news if you want to 'reduce' something like arithmetic to logic. 'Logic' is a vague object. |
10694 | Logical consequence is when in any model in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true [Tarski, by Beall/Restall] |
Full Idea: Tarski's 1936 definition of logical consequence is that in any model in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true too (so that no model can make the conclusion false). | |
From: report of Alfred Tarski (works [1936]) by JC Beall / G Restall - Logical Consequence 3 | |
A reaction: So the general idea is that a logical consequence is distinguished by being unstoppable. Sounds good. But then we have monotonic and non-monotonic logics, which (I'm guessing) embody different notions of consequence. |
10479 | Logical consequence: true premises give true conclusions under all interpretations [Tarski, by Hodges,W] |
Full Idea: Tarski's definition of logical consequence (1936) is that in a fully interpreted formal language an argument is valid iff under any allowed interpretation of its nonlogical symbols, if the premises are true then so is the conclusion. | |
From: report of Alfred Tarski (works [1936]) by Wilfrid Hodges - Model Theory 3 | |
A reaction: The idea that you can only make these claims 'under an interpretation' seems to have had a huge influence on later philosophical thinking. |