|
8083
|
Boole applied normal algebra to logic, aiming at an algebra of thought [Boole, by Devlin]
|
|
Full Idea:
Boole proposed to use the entire apparatus of a school algebra class, with operations such as addition and multiplication, methods to solve equations, and the like, to produce an algebra of thought.
|
|
From:
report of George Boole (The Laws of Thought [1854]) by Keith Devlin - Goodbye Descartes Ch.3
|
|
A reaction:
The Stoics didn’t use any algebraic notation for their study of propositions, so Boole's idea launched full blown propositional logic, and the rest of modern logic followed. Nice one.
|
|
8686
|
Boole made logic more mathematical, with algebra, quantifiers and probability [Boole, by Friend]
|
|
Full Idea:
Boole (followed by Frege) began to turn logic from a branch of philosophy into a branch of mathematics. He brought an algebraic approach to propositions, and introduced the notion of a quantifier and a type of probabilistic reasoning.
|
|
From:
report of George Boole (The Laws of Thought [1854], 3.2) by Michčle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics
|
|
A reaction:
The result was that logic not only became more mathematical, but also more specialised. We now have two types of philosopher, those steeped in mathematical logic and the rest. They don't always sing from the same songsheet.
|
|
22277
|
Boole's method was axiomatic, achieving economy, plus multiple interpretations [Boole, by Potter]
|
|
Full Idea:
Boole's work was an early example of the axiomatic method, whereby intellectual economy is achieved by studying a set of axioms in which the primitive terms have multiple interpretations.
|
|
From:
report of George Boole (The Laws of Thought [1854]) by Michael Potter - The Rise of Analytic Philosophy 1879-1930 02 'Boole'
|
|
A reaction:
Unclear about this. I suppose the axioms are just syntactic, and a range of semantic interpretations can be applied. Are De Morgan's Laws interpretations, or implications of the syntactic axioms? The latter, I think.
|
|
6007
|
If you know your father, but don't recognise your father veiled, you know and don't know the same person [Eubulides, by Dancy,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
The 'undetected' or 'veiled' paradox of Eubulides says: if you know your father, and don't know the veiled person before you, but that person is your father, you both know and don't know the same person.
|
|
From:
report of Eubulides (fragments/reports [c.390 BCE]) by R.M. Dancy - Megarian School
|
|
A reaction:
Essentially an uninteresting equivocation on two senses of "know", but this paradox comes into its own when we try to give an account of how linguistic reference works. Frege's distinction of sense and reference tried to sort it out (Idea 4976).
|
|
6008
|
Removing one grain doesn't destroy a heap, so a heap can't be destroyed [Eubulides, by Dancy,R]
|
|
Full Idea:
The 'sorites' paradox of Eubulides says: if you take one grain of sand from a heap (soros), what is left is still a heap; so no matter how many grains of sand you take one by one, the result is always a heap.
|
|
From:
report of Eubulides (fragments/reports [c.390 BCE]) by R.M. Dancy - Megarian School
|
|
A reaction:
(also Cic. Acad. 2.49) This is a very nice paradox, which goes to the heart of our bewilderment when we try to fully understand reality. It homes in on problems of identity, as best exemplified in the Ship of Theseus (Ideas 1212 + 1213).
|
|
13222
|
The Boundless cannot exist on its own, and must have something contrary to it [Aristotle on Anaximander]
|
|
Full Idea:
Those thinkers are in error who postulate ...a single matter, for this cannot exist without some 'perceptible contrariety': this Boundless, which they identify with the 'original real', must be either light or heavy, either hot or cold.
|
|
From:
comment on Anaximander (fragments/reports [c.570 BCE]) by Aristotle - Coming-to-be and Passing-away (Gen/Corr) 329a10
|
|
A reaction:
A dubious objection, I would say. If there has to be a contrasting cold thing to any hot thing, what happens when the cold thing is removed?
|