28 ideas
10688 | 'Equivocation' is when terms do not mean the same thing in premises and conclusion [Beall/Restall] |
Full Idea: 'Equivocation' is when the terms do not mean the same thing in the premises and in the conclusion. | |
From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], Intro) |
10888 | Sets can be defined by 'enumeration', or by 'abstraction' (based on a property) [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: We can define a set by 'enumeration' (by listing the items, within curly brackets), or by 'abstraction' (by specifying the elements as instances of a property), pretending that they form a determinate totality. The latter is written {x | x is P}. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §1.3) |
10889 | The 'Cartesian Product' of two sets relates them by pairing every element with every element [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea:
The 'Cartesian Product' of two sets, written A x B, is the relation which pairs every element of A with every element of B. So A x B = { |
|
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §1.6) |
10890 | A 'partial ordering' is reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A binary relation in a set is a 'partial ordering' just in case it is reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §1.6) |
10886 | Determinacy: an object is either in a set, or it isn't [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: Principle of Determinacy: For every object a and every set S, either a is an element of S or a is not an element of S. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §1.2) |
10887 | Specification: Determinate totals of objects always make a set [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: Principle of Specification: Whenever we can specify a determinate totality of objects, we shall say that there is a set whose elements are precisely the objects that we have specified. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §1.3) | |
A reaction: Compare the Axiom of Specification. Zalabardo says we may wish to consider sets of which we cannot specify the members. |
10690 | Formal logic is invariant under permutations, or devoid of content, or gives the norms for thought [Beall/Restall] |
Full Idea: Logic is purely formal either when it is invariant under permutation of object (Tarski), or when it has totally abstracted away from all contents, or it is the constitutive norms for thought. | |
From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 2) | |
A reaction: [compressed] The third account sounds rather woolly, and the second one sounds like a tricky operation, but the first one sounds clear and decisive, so I vote for Tarski. |
10897 | A first-order 'sentence' is a formula with no free variables [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A formula of a first-order language is a 'sentence' just in case it has no free variables. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.2) |
13342 | Carnap defined consequence by contradiction, but this is unintuitive and changes with substitution [Tarski on Carnap] |
Full Idea: Carnap proposed to define consequence as 'sentence X follows from the sentences K iff the sentences K and the negation of X are contradictory', but 1) this is intuitively impossible, and 2) consequence would be changed by substituting objects. | |
From: comment on Rudolph Carnap (The Logical Syntax of Language [1934], p.88-) by Alfred Tarski - The Concept of Logical Consequence p.414 | |
A reaction: This seems to be the first step in the ongoing explicit discussion of the nature of logical consequence, which is now seen by many as the central concept of logic. Tarski brings his new tool of 'satisfaction' to bear. |
10691 | Logical consequence needs either proofs, or absence of counterexamples [Beall/Restall] |
Full Idea: Technical work on logical consequence has either focused on proofs, where validity is the existence of a proof of the conclusions from the premises, or on models, which focus on the absence of counterexamples. | |
From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 3) |
10893 | Γ |= φ for sentences if φ is true when all of Γ is true [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A propositional logic sentence is a 'logical consequence' of a set of sentences (written Γ |= φ) if for every admissible truth-assignment all the sentences in the set Γ are true, then φ is true. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.4) | |
A reaction: The definition is similar for predicate logic. |
10899 | Γ |= φ if φ is true when all of Γ is true, for all structures and interpretations [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A formula is the 'logical consequence' of a set of formulas (Γ |= φ) if for every structure in the language and every variable interpretation of the structure, if all the formulas within the set are true and the formula itself is true. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.5) |
10695 | Logical consequence is either necessary truth preservation, or preservation based on interpretation [Beall/Restall] |
Full Idea: Two different views of logical consequence are necessary truth-preservation (based on modelling possible worlds; favoured by Realists), or truth-preservation based on the meanings of the logical vocabulary (differing in various models; for Anti-Realists). | |
From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 2) | |
A reaction: Thus Dummett prefers the second view, because the law of excluded middle is optional. My instincts are with the first one. |
10689 | A step is a 'material consequence' if we need contents as well as form [Beall/Restall] |
Full Idea: A logical step is a 'material consequence' and not a formal one, if we need the contents as well as the structure or form. | |
From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 2) |
13251 | Each person is free to build their own logic, just by specifying a syntax [Carnap] |
Full Idea: In logic, there are no morals. Everyone is at liberty to build his own logic, i.e. his own form of language. All that is required is that he must state his methods clearly, and give syntactical rules instead of philosophical arguments. | |
From: Rudolph Carnap (The Logical Syntax of Language [1934], §17), quoted by JC Beall / G Restall - Logical Pluralism 7.3 | |
A reaction: This is understandable, but strikes me as close to daft relativism. If I specify a silly logic, I presume its silliness will be obvious. By what criteria? I say the world dictates the true logic, but this is a minority view. |
10896 | Propositional logic just needs ¬, and one of ∧, ∨ and → [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: In propositional logic, any set containing ¬ and at least one of ∧, ∨ and → is expressively complete. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.8) |
10898 | The semantics shows how truth values depend on instantiations of properties and relations [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: The semantic pattern of a first-order language is the ways in which truth values depend on which individuals instantiate the properties and relations which figure in them. ..So we pair a truth value with each combination of individuals, sets etc. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.3) | |
A reaction: So truth reduces to a combination of 'instantiations', which is rather like 'satisfaction'. |
10902 | We can do semantics by looking at given propositions, or by building new ones [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: We can look at semantics from the point of view of how truth values are determined by instantiations of properties and relations, or by asking how we can build, using the resources of the language, a proposition corresponding to a given semantic pattern. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.6) | |
A reaction: The second version of semantics is model theory. |
10892 | We make a truth assignment to T and F, which may be true and false, but merely differ from one another [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A truth assignment is a function from propositions to the set {T,F}. We will think of T and F as the truth values true and false, but for our purposes all we need to assume about the identity of these objects is that they are different from each other. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.4) | |
A reaction: Note that T and F are 'objects'. This remark is important in understanding modern logical semantics. T and F can be equated to 1 and 0 in the language of a computer. They just mean as much as you want them to mean. |
10895 | 'Logically true' (|= φ) is true for every truth-assignment [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A propositional logic sentence is 'logically true', written |= φ, if it is true for every admissible truth-assignment. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.4) |
10696 | A 'logical truth' (or 'tautology', or 'theorem') follows from empty premises [Beall/Restall] |
Full Idea: If a conclusion follows from an empty collection of premises, it is true by logic alone, and is a 'logical truth' (sometimes a 'tautology'), or, in the proof-centred approach, 'theorems'. | |
From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 4) | |
A reaction: These truths are written as following from the empty set Φ. They are just implications derived from the axioms and the rules. |
10900 | Logically true sentences are true in all structures [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: In first-order languages, logically true sentences are true in all structures. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.5) |
10894 | A sentence-set is 'satisfiable' if at least one truth-assignment makes them all true [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A propositional logic set of sentences Γ is 'satisfiable' if there is at least one admissible truth-assignment that makes all of its sentences true. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.4) |
10901 | Some formulas are 'satisfiable' if there is a structure and interpretation that makes them true [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A set of formulas of a first-order language is 'satisfiable' if there is a structure and a variable interpretation in that structure such that all the formulas of the set are true. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.5) |
10693 | Models are mathematical structures which interpret the non-logical primitives [Beall/Restall] |
Full Idea: Models are abstract mathematical structures that provide possible interpretations for each of the non-logical primitives in a formal language. | |
From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 3) |
10903 | A structure models a sentence if it is true in the model, and a set of sentences if they are all true in the model [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: A structure is a model of a sentence if the sentence is true in the model; a structure is a model of a set of sentences if they are all true in the structure. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §3.6) |
10692 | Hilbert proofs have simple rules and complex axioms, and natural deduction is the opposite [Beall/Restall] |
Full Idea: There are many proof-systems, the main being Hilbert proofs (with simple rules and complex axioms), or natural deduction systems (with few axioms and many rules, and the rules constitute the meaning of the connectives). | |
From: JC Beall / G Restall (Logical Consequence [2005], 3) |
10891 | If a set is defined by induction, then proof by induction can be applied to it [Zalabardo] |
Full Idea: Defining a set by induction enables us to use the method of proof by induction to establish that all the elements of the set have a certain property. | |
From: José L. Zalabardo (Introduction to the Theory of Logic [2000], §2.3) |