display all the ideas for this combination of texts
11 ideas
6020 | 'Man is a rational mortal animal' is equivalent to 'if something is a man, that thing is a rational mortal animal' [Sext.Empiricus] |
Full Idea: Definitions are identical to universal propositions in meaning, and only differ in syntax, for whoever says 'Man is a rational mortal animal' says the same thing in meaning as whoever says 'If something is a man, that thing is a rational mortal animal'. | |
From: Sextus Empiricus (Against the Professors (six books) [c.180], 11.8) | |
A reaction: How strikingly like Bertrand Russell's interest and solutions. Sextus shows a straightforward interest in logical form, of a kind we associate with the twentieth century. Did Sextus Empiricus invent quantification? |
18946 | Unreflectively, we all assume there are nonexistents, and we can refer to them [Reimer] |
Full Idea: As speakers of the language, we unreflectively assume that there are nonexistents, and that reference to them is possible. | |
From: Marga Reimer (The Problem of Empty Names [2001], p.499), quoted by Sarah Sawyer - Empty Names 4 | |
A reaction: Sarah Swoyer quotes this as a good solution to the problem of empty names, and I like it. It introduces a two-tier picture of our understanding of the world, as 'unreflective' and 'reflective', but that seems good. We accept numbers 'unreflectively'. |
13506 | The universal quantifier can't really mean 'all', because there is no universal set [Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: All the main set theories deny that there is a set of which everything is a member. No interpretation has a domain with everything in it. So the universal quantifier never gets to mean everything all at once; 'all' does not mean all. | |
From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 4) | |
A reaction: Could you have an 'uncompleted' universal set, in the spirit of uncompleted infinities? In ordinary English we can talk about 'absolutely everything' - we just can't define a set of everything. Must we 'define' our domain? |
13505 | Model theory studies how set theory can model sets of sentences [Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: Modern model theory investigates which set theoretic structures are models for which collections of sentences. | |
From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 4) | |
A reaction: So first you must choose your set theory (see Idea 13497). Then you presumably look at how to formalise sentences, and then look at the really tricky ones, many of which will involve various degrees of infinity. |
13511 | Model theory is mostly confined to first-order theories [Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: There is no developed methematics of models for second-order theories, so for the most part, model theory is about models for first-order theories. | |
From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 9) |
13513 | Models are ways the world might be from a first-order point of view [Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: Models are ways the world might be from a first-order point of view. | |
From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 9) |
13512 | Modern model theory begins with the proof of Los's Conjecture in 1962 [Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: The beginning of modern model theory was when Morley proved Los's Conjecture in 1962 - that a complete theory in a countable language categorical in one uncountable cardinal is categorical in all. | |
From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 9) |
13496 | First-order logic is 'compact': consequences of a set are consequences of a finite subset [Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: First-order logic is 'compact', which means that any logical consequence of a set (finite or infinite) of first-order sentences is a logical consequence of a finite subset of those sentences. | |
From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 3) |
13484 | Berry's Paradox: we succeed in referring to a number, with a term which says we can't do that [Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: Berry's Paradox: by the least number principle 'the least number denoted by no description of fewer than 79 letters' exists, but we just referred to it using a description of 77 letters. | |
From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 3) | |
A reaction: I struggle with this. If I refer to 'an object to which no human being could possibly refer', have I just referred to something? Graham Priest likes this sort of idea. |
13482 | The Burali-Forti paradox is a crisis for Cantor's ordinals [Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: The Burali-Forti Paradox was a crisis for Cantor's theory of ordinal numbers. | |
From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 3) |
13507 | The machinery used to solve the Liar can be rejigged to produce a new Liar [Hart,WD] |
Full Idea: In effect, the machinery introduced to solve the liar can always be rejigged to yield another version the liar. | |
From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 4) | |
A reaction: [He cites Hans Herzberger 1980-81] The machinery is Tarski's device of only talking about sentences of a language by using a 'metalanguage'. |