24 ideas
17749 | Post proved the consistency of propositional logic in 1921 [Walicki] |
Full Idea: A proof of the consistency of propositional logic was given by Emil Post in 1921. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], History E.2.1) |
17765 | Propositional language can only relate statements as the same or as different [Walicki] |
Full Idea: Propositional language is very rudimentary and has limited powers of expression. The only relation between various statements it can handle is that of identity and difference. As are all the same, but Bs can be different from As. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 7 Intro) | |
A reaction: [second sentence a paraphrase] In predicate logic you could represent two statements as being the same except for one element (an object or predicate or relation or quantifier). |
17764 | Boolean connectives are interpreted as functions on the set {1,0} [Walicki] |
Full Idea: Boolean connectives are interpreted as functions on the set {1,0}. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 5.1) | |
A reaction: 1 and 0 are normally taken to be true (T) and false (F). Thus the functions output various combinations of true and false, which are truth tables. |
17752 | The empty set is useful for defining sets by properties, when the members are not yet known [Walicki] |
Full Idea: The empty set is mainly a mathematical convenience - defining a set by describing the properties of its members in an involved way, we may not know from the very beginning what its members are. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 1.1) |
17753 | The empty set avoids having to take special precautions in case members vanish [Walicki] |
Full Idea: Without the assumption of the empty set, one would often have to take special precautions for the case where a set happened to contain no elements. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 1.1) | |
A reaction: Compare the introduction of the concept 'zero', where special precautions are therefore required. ...But other special precautions are needed without zero. Either he pays us, or we pay him, or ...er. Intersecting sets need the empty set. |
17759 | Ordinals play the central role in set theory, providing the model of well-ordering [Walicki] |
Full Idea: Ordinals play the central role in set theory, providing the paradigmatic well-orderings. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 2.3) | |
A reaction: When you draw the big V of the iterative hierarchy of sets (built from successive power sets), the ordinals are marked as a single line up the middle, one ordinal for each level. |
17741 | To determine the patterns in logic, one must identify its 'building blocks' [Walicki] |
Full Idea: In order to construct precise and valid patterns of arguments one has to determine their 'building blocks'. One has to identify the basic terms, their kinds and means of combination. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], History Intro) | |
A reaction: A deceptively simple and important idea. All explanation requires patterns and levels, and it is the idea of building blocks which makes such things possible. It is right at the centre of our grasp of everything. |
17896 | We need to know the meaning of 'and', prior to its role in reasoning [Prior,AN, by Belnap] |
Full Idea: For Prior, so the moral goes, we must first have a notion of what 'and' means, independently of the role it plays as premise and as conclusion. | |
From: report of Arthur N. Prior (The Runabout Inference Ticket [1960]) by Nuel D. Belnap - Tonk, Plonk and Plink p.132 | |
A reaction: The meaning would be given by the truth tables (the truth-conditions), whereas the role would be given by the natural deduction introduction and elimination rules. This seems to be the basic debate about logical connectives. |
17898 | Prior's 'tonk' is inconsistent, since it allows the non-conservative inference A |- B [Belnap on Prior,AN] |
Full Idea: Prior's definition of 'tonk' is inconsistent. It gives us an extension of our original characterisation of deducibility which is not conservative, since in the extension (but not the original) we have, for arbitrary A and B, A |- B. | |
From: comment on Arthur N. Prior (The Runabout Inference Ticket [1960]) by Nuel D. Belnap - Tonk, Plonk and Plink p.135 | |
A reaction: Belnap's idea is that connectives don't just rest on their rules, but also on the going concern of normal deduction. |
11021 | Prior rejected accounts of logical connectives by inference pattern, with 'tonk' his absurd example [Prior,AN, by Read] |
Full Idea: Prior dislike the holism inherent in the claim that the meaning of a logical connective was determined by the inference patterns into which it validly fitted. ...His notorious example of 'tonk' (A → A-tonk-B → B) was a reductio of the view. | |
From: report of Arthur N. Prior (The Runabout Inference Ticket [1960]) by Stephen Read - Thinking About Logic Ch.8 | |
A reaction: [The view being attacked was attributed to Gentzen] |
13836 | Maybe introducing or defining logical connectives by rules of inference leads to absurdity [Prior,AN, by Hacking] |
Full Idea: Prior intended 'tonk' (a connective which leads to absurdity) as a criticism of the very idea of introducing or defining logical connectives by rules of inference. | |
From: report of Arthur N. Prior (The Runabout Inference Ticket [1960], §09) by Ian Hacking - What is Logic? |
17747 | A 'model' of a theory specifies interpreting a language in a domain to make all theorems true [Walicki] |
Full Idea: A specification of a domain of objects, and of the rules for interpreting the symbols of a logical language in this domain such that all the theorems of the logical theory are true is said to be a 'model' of the theory. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], History E.1.3) | |
A reaction: The basic ideas of this emerged 1915-30, but it needed Tarski's account of truth to really get it going. |
17748 | The L-S Theorem says no theory (even of reals) says more than a natural number theory [Walicki] |
Full Idea: The L-S Theorem is ...a shocking result, since it implies that any consistent formal theory of everything - even about biology, physics, sets or the real numbers - can just as well be understood as being about natural numbers. It says nothing more. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], History E.2) | |
A reaction: Illuminating. Particularly the point that no theory about the real numbers can say anything more than a theory about the natural numbers. So the natural numbers contain all the truths we can ever express? Eh????? |
17761 | A compact axiomatisation makes it possible to understand a field as a whole [Walicki] |
Full Idea: Having such a compact [axiomatic] presentation of a complicated field [such as Euclid's], makes it possible to relate not only to particular theorems but also to the whole field as such. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 4.1) |
17763 | Axiomatic systems are purely syntactic, and do not presuppose any interpretation [Walicki] |
Full Idea: Axiomatic systems, their primitive terms and proofs, are purely syntactic, that is, do not presuppose any interpretation. ...[142] They never address the world directly, but address a possible semantic model which formally represents the world. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 4.1) |
17758 | Ordinals are transitive sets of transitive sets; or transitive sets totally ordered by inclusion [Walicki] |
Full Idea: An ordinal can be defined as a transitive set of transitive sets, or else, as a transitive set totally ordered by set inclusion. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 2.3) |
17755 | Ordinals are the empty set, union with the singleton, and any arbitrary union of ordinals [Walicki] |
Full Idea: The collection of ordinals is defined inductively: Basis: the empty set is an ordinal; Ind: for an ordinal x, the union with its singleton is also an ordinal; and any arbitrary (possibly infinite) union of ordinals is an ordinal. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 2.3) | |
A reaction: [symbolism translated into English] Walicki says they are called 'ordinal numbers', but are in fact a set. |
17756 | The union of finite ordinals is the first 'limit ordinal'; 2ω is the second... [Walicki] |
Full Idea: We can form infinite ordinals by taking unions of ordinals. We can thus form 'limit ordinals', which have no immediate predecessor. ω is the first (the union of all finite ordinals), ω + ω = sω is second, 3ω the third.... | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 2.3) |
17760 | Two infinite ordinals can represent a single infinite cardinal [Walicki] |
Full Idea: There may be several ordinals for the same cardinality. ...Two ordinals can represent different ways of well-ordering the same number (aleph-0) of elements. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 2.3) | |
A reaction: This only applies to infinite ordinals and cardinals. For the finite, the two coincide. In infinite arithmetic the rules are different. |
17757 | Members of ordinals are ordinals, and also subsets of ordinals [Walicki] |
Full Idea: Every member of an ordinal is itself an ordinal, and every ordinal is a transitive set (its members are also its subsets; a member of a member of an ordinal is also a member of the ordinal). | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 2.3) |
17762 | In non-Euclidean geometry, all Euclidean theorems are valid that avoid the fifth postulate [Walicki] |
Full Idea: Since non-Euclidean geometry preserves all Euclid's postulates except the fifth one, all the theorems derived without the use of the fifth postulate remain valid. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 4.1) |
17754 | Inductive proof depends on the choice of the ordering [Walicki] |
Full Idea: Inductive proof is not guaranteed to work in all cases and, particularly, it depends heavily on the choice of the ordering. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], 2.1.1) | |
A reaction: There has to be an well-founded ordering for inductive proofs to be possible. |
17742 | Scotus based modality on semantic consistency, instead of on what the future could allow [Walicki] |
Full Idea: The link between time and modality was severed by Duns Scotus, who proposed a notion of possibility based purely on the notion of semantic consistency. 'Possible' means for him logically possible, that is, not involving contradiction. | |
From: Michal Walicki (Introduction to Mathematical Logic [2012], History B.4) |
3214 | The models we use in reasoning may be more like perceptions than like language [Johnson-Laird] |
Full Idea: The models that people use to reason are more likely to resemble perception or conception of the events (from a God's-eye view) than a string of symbols directly corresponding to the linguistic form of the premises and then applying rules of inference. | |
From: P. Johnson-Laird (Mental Models [1983], p.53), quoted by Georges Rey - Contemporary Philosophy of Mind 10.1.2 | |
A reaction: My intuition is that imagination is the single most important faculty in any conscious mind, and that even small animals have an inkling of the God's-eye view. Decisions need 'what-if' scenarios. |