28 ideas
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. |
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) |
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) |
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. |
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) |
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) |
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) |
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) |
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) |
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) |
14193 | 'Substance theorists' take modal properties as primitive, without structure, just falling under a sortal [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: Some deep essentialists resist the need to explain the structure under de re modal properties, taking them as primitive. One version (which we can call 'substance theory') takes them to fall under a sortal concept, with no further explanation. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1) | |
A reaction: A very helpful identification of what Wiggins stands for, and why I disagree with him. The whole point of essences is to provide a notion that fits in with sciences, which means they must have an explanatory role, which needs structures. |
14195 | If an object's sort determines its properties, we need to ask what determines its sort [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: If the substance essentialist holds that the sort an object belongs to determines its de re modal properties (rather than the other way round), then he needs to give an (ontological, not conceptual) explanation of what determines an object's sort. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1) | |
A reaction: See Idea 14193 for 'substance essentialism'. I find it quite incredible that anyone could think that a thing's sort could determine its properties, rather than the other way round. Even if sortals are conventional, they are not arbitrary. |
14196 | Substance essentialism says an object is multiple, as falling under various different sortals [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: The explanation of material constitution given by substance essentialism is that there are multiple objects. A person is essentially human-shaped (falling under the human sort), while their hunk of tissue is accidentally human-shaped (as tissue). | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §1) | |
A reaction: At this point sortal essentialism begins to look crazy. Persons are dubious examples (with sneaky dualism involved). A bronze statue is essentially harder to dent than a clay one, because of its bronze. If you remake it of clay, it isn't the same statue. |
14198 | Absolutely unrestricted qualitative composition would allow things with incompatible properties [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: Absolutely unrestricted qualitative composition would imply that objects with incompatible properties and objects such as winged pigs or golden mountains were actual. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §5) | |
A reaction: Note that this is 'qualitative' composition, and not composition of parts. The objection seems to rule out unrestricted qualitative composition, since you could hardly combine squareness with roundness. |
14190 | Deep essentialist objects have intrinsic properties that fix their nature; the shallow version makes it contextual [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: Essentialism says that objects have their properties essentially. 'Deep' essentialists take the (nontrivial) essential properties of an object to determine its nature. 'Shallow' essentialists substitute context-dependent truths for the independent ones. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
A reaction: If the deep essence determines a things nature, we should not need to say 'nontrivial'. This is my bete noire, the confusion of essential properties with necessary ones, where necessary properties (or predicates, at least) can indeed be trivial. |
14191 | Deep essentialists say essences constrain how things could change; modal profiles fix natures [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: The deep essentialist holds that most objects have essential properties such that there are many ways they could not be, or many changes through which they could not persist. Objects' modal profiles characterize their natures. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
A reaction: This is the view I like, especially the last bit. If your modal profile doesn't determine your nature, then what does? Think of how you sum up a person at a funeral. Your modal profile is determined by dispositions and powers. |
14192 | Essentialism must deal with charges of arbitrariness, and failure to reduce de re modality [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: Two objections to deep essentialism are that it falters when faced with a skeptical objection concerning arbitrariness, and the need for a reductive account of de re modality. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
A reaction: An immediate response to the second objection might be to say that modal facts about things are not reducible. The charge of arbitrariness (i.e. total arbitrariness, not just a bit of uncertainty) is the main thing a theory of essences must deal with. |
14197 | An object's modal properties don't determine its possibilities [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: I reject the view that an object's de re modal properties determine its relations to possibilia. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], §3) | |
A reaction: You'll have to read Paul to see why, but I flat disagree with her on this. The whole point of accepting such properties is to determine the modal profile of the thing, and hence see how it can fit into and behave in the world. |
14189 | 'Modal realists' believe in many concrete worlds, 'actualists' in just this world, 'ersatzists' in abstract other worlds [Paul,LA] |
Full Idea: A 'modal realist' believes that there are many concrete worlds, while the 'actualist' believes in only one concrete world, the actual world. The 'ersatzist' is an actualist who takes nonactual possible worlds and their contents to be abstracta. | |
From: L.A. Paul (In Defense of Essentialism [2006], Intro) | |
A reaction: My view is something like that modal realism is wrong, and actualism is right, and possible worlds (if they really are that useful) are convenient abstract fictions, constructed (if we have any sense) out of the real possibilities in the actual world. |
7495 | Apart from the fear, dying is an easy duty [Montaigne] |
Full Idea: If our fears did not lend it weight, dying would be one of our lighter duties. | |
From: Michel de Montaigne (III.12 On physiognomy [1580], p.1191) | |
A reaction: An Epicurean thought. 'Duties' is nice - presumably death qualifies as a duty, because Nature requires it of us (we each of us 'owe nature a death'). The remark appears to me to be true. |