|
10751
|
Second-order logic needs the sets, and its consequence has epistemological problems [Rossberg]
|
|
Full Idea:
Second-order logic raises doubts because of its ontological commitment to the set-theoretic hierarchy, and the allegedly problematic epistemic status of the second-order consequence relation.
|
|
From:
Marcus Rossberg (First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness [2004], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
The 'epistemic' problem is whether you can know the truths, given that the logic is incomplete, and so they cannot all be proved. Rossberg defends second-order logic against the second problem. A third problem is that it may be mathematics.
|
|
10753
|
Logical consequence is intuitively semantic, and captured by model theory [Rossberg]
|
|
Full Idea:
Logical consequence is intuitively taken to be a semantic notion, ...and it is therefore the formal semantics, i.e. the model theory, that captures logical consequence.
|
|
From:
Marcus Rossberg (First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness [2004], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
If you come at the issue from normal speech, this seems right, but if you start thinking about the necessity of logical consequence, that formal rules and proof-theory seem to be the foundation.
|
|
10752
|
Γ |- S says S can be deduced from Γ; Γ |= S says a good model for Γ makes S true [Rossberg]
|
|
Full Idea:
Deductive consequence, written Γ|-S, is loosely read as 'the sentence S can be deduced from the sentences Γ', and semantic consequence Γ|=S says 'all models that make Γ true make S true as well'.
|
|
From:
Marcus Rossberg (First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness [2004], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
We might read |= as 'true in the same model as'. What is the relation, though, between the LHS and the RHS? They seem to be mutually related to some model, but not directly to one another.
|
|
10756
|
A model is a domain, and an interpretation assigning objects, predicates, relations etc. [Rossberg]
|
|
Full Idea:
A standard model is a set of objects called the 'domain', and an interpretation function, assigning objects in the domain to names, subsets to predicate letters, subsets of the Cartesian product of the domain with itself to binary relation symbols etc.
|
|
From:
Marcus Rossberg (First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness [2004], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
The model actually specifies which objects have which predicates, and which objects are in which relations. Tarski's account of truth in terms of 'satisfaction' seems to be just a description of those pre-decided facts.
|
|
10758
|
If models of a mathematical theory are all isomorphic, it is 'categorical', with essentially one model [Rossberg]
|
|
Full Idea:
A mathematical theory is 'categorical' if, and only if, all of its models are isomorphic. Such a theory then essentially has just one model, the standard one.
|
|
From:
Marcus Rossberg (First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness [2004], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
So the term 'categorical' is gradually replacing the much-used phrase 'up to isomorphism'.
|
|
18253
|
I wish to go straight from cardinals to reals (as ratios), leaving out the rationals [Frege]
|
|
Full Idea:
You need a double transition, from cardinal numbes (Anzahlen) to the rational numbers, and from the latter to the real numbers generally. I wish to go straight from the cardinal numbers to the real numbers as ratios of quantities.
|
|
From:
Gottlob Frege (Letters to Russell [1902], 1903.05.21), quoted by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics 21 'Frege's'
|
|
A reaction:
Note that Frege's real numbers are not quantities, but ratios of quantities. In this way the same real number can refer to lengths, masses, intensities etc.
|
|
18269
|
Logical objects are extensions of concepts, or ranges of values of functions [Frege]
|
|
Full Idea:
How are we to conceive of logical objects? My only answer is, we conceive of them as extensions of concepts or, more generally, as ranges of values of functions ...what other way is there?
|
|
From:
Gottlob Frege (Letters to Russell [1902], 1902.07.28), quoted by J. Alberto Coffa - The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap 7 epigr
|
|
A reaction:
This is the clearest statement I have found of what Frege means by an 'object'. But an extension is a collection of things, so an object is a group treated as a unity, which is generally how we understand a 'set'. Hence Quine's ontology.
|