35 ideas
| 9672 | Free logic is one of the few first-order non-classical logics [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: Free logic is an unusual example of a non-classical logic which is first-order. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], Pref) |
| 9697 | X1 x X2 x X3... x Xn indicates the 'cartesian product' of those sets [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X1 x X2 x X3... x Xn indicates the 'cartesian product' of those sets, the set of all the n-tuples with its first member in X1, its second in X2, and so on. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.0) |
| 9685 | <a,b&62; is a set whose members occur in the order shown [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: <a,b> is a set whose members occur in the order shown; <x1,x2,x3, ..xn> is an 'n-tuple' ordered set. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.10) |
| 9675 | a ∈ X says a is an object in set X; a ∉ X says a is not in X [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: a ∈ X means that a is a member of the set X, that is, a is one of the objects in X. a ∉ X indicates that a is not in X. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
| 9674 | {x; A(x)} is a set of objects satisfying the condition A(x) [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: {x; A(x)} indicates a set of objects which satisfy the condition A(x). | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
| 9673 | {a1, a2, ...an} indicates that a set comprising just those objects [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: {a1, a2, ...an} indicates that the set comprises of just those objects. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
| 9677 | Φ indicates the empty set, which has no members [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: Φ indicates the empty set, which has no members | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
| 9676 | {a} is the 'singleton' set of a (not the object a itself) [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: {a} is the 'singleton' set of a, not to be confused with the object a itself. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
| 9679 | X⊂Y means set X is a 'proper subset' of set Y [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X⊂Y means set X is a 'proper subset' of set Y (if and only if all of its members are members of Y, but some things in Y are not in X) | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 9678 | X⊆Y means set X is a 'subset' of set Y [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X⊆Y means set X is a 'subset' of set Y (if and only if all of its members are members of Y). | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 9681 | X = Y means the set X equals the set Y [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X = Y means the set X equals the set Y, which means they have the same members (i.e. X⊆Y and Y⊆X). | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 9683 | X ∩ Y indicates the 'intersection' of sets X and Y, the objects which are in both sets [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X ∩ Y indicates the 'intersection' of sets X and Y, which is a set containing just those things that are in both X and Y. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9682 | X∪Y indicates the 'union' of all the things in sets X and Y [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: X ∪ Y indicates the 'union' of sets X and Y, which is a set containing just those things that are in X or Y (or both). | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9684 | Y - X is the 'relative complement' of X with respect to Y; the things in Y that are not in X [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: Y - X indicates the 'relative complement' of X with respect to Y, that is, all the things in Y that are not in X. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9694 | The 'relative complement' is things in the second set not in the first [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The 'relative complement' of one set with respect to another is the things in the second set that aren't in the first. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9693 | The 'intersection' of two sets is a set of the things that are in both sets [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The 'intersection' of two sets is a set containing the things that are in both sets. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9692 | The 'union' of two sets is a set containing all the things in either of the sets [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The 'union' of two sets is a set containing all the things in either of the sets | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.8) |
| 9698 | The 'induction clause' says complex formulas retain the properties of their basic formulas [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The 'induction clause' says that whenever one constructs more complex formulas out of formulas that have the property P, the resulting formulas will also have that property. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.2) |
| 9688 | A 'singleton' is a set with only one member [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A 'singleton' is a set with only one member. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
| 9687 | A 'member' of a set is one of the objects in the set [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A 'member' of a set is one of the objects in the set. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
| 9695 | An 'ordered pair' (or ordered n-tuple) is a set with its members in a particular order [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: An 'ordered pair' (or ordered n-tuple) is a set with its members in a particular order. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.10) |
| 9696 | A 'cartesian product' of sets is the set of all the n-tuples with one member in each of the sets [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A 'cartesian product' of sets is the set of all the n-tuples with one member in each of the sets. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.10) |
| 9686 | A 'set' is a collection of objects [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A 'set' is a collection of objects. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.2) |
| 9689 | The 'empty set' or 'null set' has no members [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The 'empty set' or 'null set' is a set with no members. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.4) |
| 9690 | A set is a 'subset' of another set if all of its members are in that set [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A set is a 'subset' of another set if all of its members are in that set. | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 9691 | A 'proper subset' is smaller than the containing set [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A set is a 'proper subset' of another set if some things in the large set are not in the smaller set | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 9680 | The empty set Φ is a subset of every set (including itself) [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: The empty set Φ is a subset of every set (including itself). | |
| From: Graham Priest (Intro to Non-Classical Logic (1st ed) [2001], 0.1.6) |
| 8361 | What is true used to be possible, but it may no longer be so [Wright,GHv] |
| Full Idea: It is not very natural to say of that which is true that it is also possible. ...What is true was possible - but whether it still is a potency of the world is not certain. | |
| From: G.H. von Wright (Logic and Epistemology of Causal Relations [1973], §5) | |
| A reaction: A simple and rather important distinction. Before encountering this, I would certainly have been happy to affirm that the actual is possible, but actually it may not be. The power to create differs from the power to sustain. Could God re-create the world? |
| 19087 | The meaning or purport of a symbol is all the rational conduct it would lead to [Peirce] |
| Full Idea: The entire intellectual purport of any symbol consists in the total of all modes of rational conduct which, conditionally upon all the possible different circumstances and desires, would ensue upon the acceptance of the symbol. | |
| From: Charles Sanders Peirce (Issues of Pragmaticism [1905], EP ii.246), quoted by Danielle Macbeth - Pragmatism and Objective Truth p.169 n1 | |
| A reaction: Macbeth says pragmatism is founded on this theory of meaning, rather than on a theory of truth. I don't see why the causes of a symbol shouldn't be as much a part of its meaning as the consequences are. |
| 8363 | p is a cause and q an effect (not vice versa) if manipulations of p change q [Wright,GHv] |
| Full Idea: What makes p a cause-factor relative to the effect-factor q (rather than vice versa) is the fact that by manipulating p, producing changes in it 'at will', we could bring about changes in q. | |
| From: G.H. von Wright (Logic and Epistemology of Causal Relations [1973], §8) | |
| A reaction: As a solution to the direction-of-causation problem, I suspect that this proposal is begging the question. Will a causal explanation be offered of the action of manipulation? If he mistook his manipulation for a cause when it is actually an effect... |
| 8364 | We can imagine controlling floods by controlling rain, but not vice versa [Wright,GHv] |
| Full Idea: Given our present knowledge of the laws of nature, we can imagine ways of controlling floods by controlling rainfall, but not the other way round. That is should be so, however, is contingent. | |
| From: G.H. von Wright (Logic and Epistemology of Causal Relations [1973], §8) | |
| A reaction: Despite my objections to Idea 8363, this is a good example. It won't establish the metaphysics of the direction of causation, though, because God might control rainfall by controlling floods. Maybe causation is more like a motorway pile-up than dominoes. |
| 8366 | The very notion of a cause depends on agency and action [Wright,GHv] |
| Full Idea: There is an implicit dependence of the very notion of a cause on a concept of agency and action. | |
| From: G.H. von Wright (Logic and Epistemology of Causal Relations [1973], §10) | |
| A reaction: This is because he thinks experimental intervention is the key to the concept of causation (see Ideas 8362 and 8363). Others go further, and say that the concept of causation arises from subjective experience of performing actions. I quite like that. |
| 8362 | We give regularities a causal character by subjecting them to experiment [Wright,GHv] |
| Full Idea: What confers on observed regularities the character of causal or nomic connections is the possibility of subjecting cause-factors to experimental test by interfering with the 'natural' course of events. | |
| From: G.H. von Wright (Logic and Epistemology of Causal Relations [1973], §7) | |
| A reaction: This is von Wright's distinctive proposal, making causation a feature of the culture of science, rather than of ordinary life. But see Idea 2461. Causation is becoming too epistemological for my taste. Either it is a feature of reality, or forget it. |
| 8360 | We must further analyse conditions for causation, into quantifiers or modal concepts [Wright,GHv] |
| Full Idea: We may be able to analyse causation into conditionship relations between events or states of affairs, ...but conditions cannot be regarded as logical primitives, ... and must be analysed into quantifiers, or modal concepts. | |
| From: G.H. von Wright (Logic and Epistemology of Causal Relations [1973], §2) | |
| A reaction: [very compressed] A nice illustration of the aim of analytical philosophy - to analyse the elements of reality down to logical primitives. This is the dream of Descartes and Leibniz, continued by Russell and co. Do we still have this aspiration? |
| 8365 | Some laws are causal (Ohm's Law), but others are conceptual principles (conservation of energy) [Wright,GHv] |
| Full Idea: Not all laws are causal 'experimentalist' laws, such as those for falling bodies, or the Gas Law, or Ohm's Law. Some are more like conceptual principles, giving a frame of reference, such as inertia, or conservation of energy, or the law of entropy. | |
| From: G.H. von Wright (Logic and Epistemology of Causal Relations [1973], §9) | |
| A reaction: An interesting and important distinction, whenever one is exploring the links between theories of causation and of laws of nature. If one wished to attack the whole concept of 'laws of nature', this might be a good place to start. |