77 ideas
| 13634 | Satisfaction is 'truth in a model', which is a model of 'truth' [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: In a sense, satisfaction is the notion of 'truth in a model', and (as Hodes 1984 elegantly puts it) 'truth in a model' is a model of 'truth'. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: So we can say that Tarski doesn't offer a definition of truth itself, but replaces it with a 'model' of truth. |
| 13643 | Aristotelian logic is complete [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Aristotelian logic is complete. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: [He cites Corcoran 1972] |
| 9542 | The best known axiomatization of PL is Whitehead/Russell, with four axioms and two rules [Russell/Whitehead, by Hughes/Cresswell] |
| Full Idea: The best known axiomatization of PL is Whitehead/Russell. There are four axioms: (p∨p)→p, q→(p∨q), (p→q)→(q∨p), and (q→r)→((p∨q)→(p∨r)), plus Substitution and Modus Ponens rules. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by GE Hughes/M Cresswell - An Introduction to Modal Logic Ch.1 |
| 13651 | A set is 'transitive' if contains every member of each of its members [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: If, for every b∈d, a∈b entails that a∈d, the d is said to be 'transitive'. In other words, d is transitive if it contains every member of each of its members. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: The alternative would be that the members of the set are subsets, but the members of those subsets are not themselves members of the higher-level set. |
| 13647 | Choice is essential for proving downward Löwenheim-Skolem [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The axiom of choice is essential for proving the downward Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 4.1) |
| 21720 | Russell saw Reducibility as legitimate for reducing classes to logic [Linsky,B on Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: The axiom of Reducibility ...is crucial in the reduction of classes to logic, ...and seems to be a quite legitimate logical notion for Russell. | |
| From: comment on B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Bernard Linsky - Russell's Metaphysical Logic 6.4 | |
| A reaction: This is an unusual defence of the axiom, which is usually presumed to have been kicked into the long grass by Quine. If one could reduce classes to logic, that would destroy the opposition to logicism in a single neat coup. |
| 13631 | Are sets part of logic, or part of mathematics? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Is there a notion of set in the jurisdiction of logic, or does it belong to mathematics proper? | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: It immediately strikes me that they might be neither. I don't see that relations between well-defined groups of things must involve number, and I don't see that mapping the relations must intrinsically involve logical consequence or inference. |
| 13640 | Russell's paradox shows that there are classes which are not iterative sets [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The argument behind Russell's paradox shows that in set theory there are logical sets (i.e. classes) that are not iterative sets. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.3) | |
| A reaction: In his preface, Shapiro expresses doubts about the idea of a 'logical set'. Hence the theorists like the iterative hierarchy because it is well-founded and under control, not because it is comprehensive in scope. See all of pp.19-20. |
| 13654 | It is central to the iterative conception that membership is well-founded, with no infinite descending chains [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: In set theory it is central to the iterative conception that the membership relation is well-founded, ...which means there are no infinite descending chains from any relation. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5.1.4) |
| 13666 | Iterative sets are not Boolean; the complement of an iterative set is not an iterative sets [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Iterative sets do not exhibit a Boolean structure, because the complement of an iterative set is not itself an iterative set. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.1) |
| 13653 | 'Well-ordering' of a set is an irreflexive, transitive, and binary relation with a least element [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A 'well-ordering' of a set X is an irreflexive, transitive, and binary relation on X in which every non-empty subset of X has a least element. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5.1.3) | |
| A reaction: So there is a beginning, an ongoing sequence, and no retracing of steps. |
| 10044 | Russell denies extensional sets, because the null can't be a collection, and the singleton is just its element [Russell/Whitehead, by Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Russell adduces two reasons against the extensional view of classes, namely the existence of the null class (which cannot very well be a collection), and the unit classes (which would have to be identical with their single elements). | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Stewart Shapiro - Structure and Ontology p.459 | |
| A reaction: Gödel believes in the reality of classes. I have great sympathy with Russell, when people start to claim that sets are not just conveniences to help us think about things, but actual abstract entities. Is the singleton of my pencil is on this table? |
| 18208 | We regard classes as mere symbolic or linguistic conveniences [Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: Classes, so far as we introduce them, are merely symbolic or linguistic conveniences, not genuine objects. | |
| From: B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913], p.72), quoted by Penelope Maddy - Naturalism in Mathematics III.2 |
| 13627 | There is no 'correct' logic for natural languages [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There is no question of finding the 'correct' or 'true' logic underlying a part of natural language. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: One needs the context of Shapiro's defence of second-order logic to see his reasons for this. Call me romantic, but I retain faith that there is one true logic. The Kennedy Assassination problem - can't see the truth because drowning in evidence. |
| 13642 | Logic is the ideal for learning new propositions on the basis of others [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A logic can be seen as the ideal of what may be called 'relative justification', the process of coming to know some propositions on the basis of others. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 2.3.1) | |
| A reaction: This seems to be the modern idea of logic, as opposed to identification of a set of 'logical truths' from which eternal necessities (such as mathematics) can be derived. 'Know' implies that they are true - which conclusions may not be. |
| 13668 | Bernays (1918) formulated and proved the completeness of propositional logic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Bernays (1918) formulated and proved the completeness of propositional logic, the first precise solution as part of the Hilbert programme. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.2.1) |
| 13667 | Skolem and Gödel championed first-order, and Zermelo, Hilbert, and Bernays championed higher-order [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Skolem and Gödel were the main proponents of first-order languages. The higher-order language 'opposition' was championed by Zermelo, Hilbert, and Bernays. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.2) |
| 13669 | Can one develop set theory first, then derive numbers, or are numbers more basic? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: In 1910 Weyl observed that set theory seemed to presuppose natural numbers, and he regarded numbers as more fundamental than sets, as did Fraenkel. Dedekind had developed set theory independently, and used it to formulate numbers. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.2.2) |
| 13662 | First-order logic was an afterthought in the development of modern logic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Almost all the systems developed in the first part of the twentieth century are higher-order; first-order logic was an afterthought. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.1) |
| 13624 | The 'triumph' of first-order logic may be related to logicism and the Hilbert programme, which failed [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 'triumph' of first-order logic may be related to the remnants of failed foundationalist programmes early this century - logicism and the Hilbert programme. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: Being complete must also be one of its attractions, and Quine seems to like it because of its minimal ontological commitment. |
| 13660 | Maybe compactness, semantic effectiveness, and the Löwenheim-Skolem properties are desirable [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Tharp (1975) suggested that compactness, semantic effectiveness, and the Löwenheim-Skolem properties are consequences of features one would want a logic to have. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: I like this proposal, though Shapiro is strongly against. We keep extending our logic so that we can prove new things, but why should we assume that we can prove everything? That's just what Gödel suggests that we should give up on. |
| 13673 | The notion of finitude is actually built into first-order languages [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The notion of finitude is explicitly 'built in' to the systems of first-order languages in one way or another. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.1) | |
| A reaction: Personally I am inclined to think that they are none the worse for that. No one had even thought of all these lovely infinities before 1870, and now we are supposed to change our logic (our actual logic!) to accommodate them. Cf quantum logic. |
| 13629 | Broad standard semantics, or Henkin semantics with a subclass, or many-sorted first-order semantics? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Three systems of semantics for second-order languages: 'standard semantics' (variables cover all relations and functions), 'Henkin semantics' (relations and functions are a subclass) and 'first-order semantics' (many-sorted domains for variable-types). | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: [my summary] |
| 15944 | Second-order logic is better than set theory, since it only adds relations and operations, and nothing else [Shapiro, by Lavine] |
| Full Idea: Shapiro preferred second-order logic to set theory because second-order logic refers only to the relations and operations in a domain, and not to the other things that set-theory brings with it - other domains, higher-order relations, and so forth. | |
| From: report of Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991]) by Shaughan Lavine - Understanding the Infinite VII.4 |
| 13650 | Henkin semantics has separate variables ranging over the relations and over the functions [Shapiro] |
|
Full Idea:
In 'Henkin' semantics, in a given model |
|
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 3.3) |
| 13645 | In standard semantics for second-order logic, a single domain fixes the ranges for the variables [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: In the standard semantics of second-order logic, by fixing a domain one thereby fixes the range of both the first-order variables and the second-order variables. There is no further 'interpreting' to be done. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: This contrasts with 'Henkin' semantics (Idea 13650), or first-order semantics, which involve more than one domain of quantification. |
| 13649 | Completeness, Compactness and Löwenheim-Skolem fail in second-order standard semantics [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The counterparts of Completeness, Compactness and the Löwenheim-Skolem theorems all fail for second-order languages with standard semantics, but hold for Henkin or first-order semantics. Hence such logics are much like first-order logic. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: Shapiro votes for the standard semantics, because he wants the greater expressive power, especially for the characterization of infinite structures. |
| 13626 | Semantic consequence is ineffective in second-order logic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It follows from Gödel's incompleteness theorem that the semantic consequence relation of second-order logic is not effective. For example, the set of logical truths of any second-order logic is not recursively enumerable. It is not even arithmetic. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: I don't fully understand this, but it sounds rather major, and a good reason to avoid second-order logic (despite Shapiro's proselytising). See Peter Smith on 'effectively enumerable'. |
| 13637 | If a logic is incomplete, its semantic consequence relation is not effective [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Second-order logic is inherently incomplete, so its semantic consequence relation is not effective. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.2.1) |
| 8204 | Lewis's 'strict implication' preserved Russell's confusion of 'if...then' with implication [Quine on Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: Russell call 'if...then' implication, when the material conditional is a much better account; C.I.Lewis (in founding modern modal logic) preserved Russell's confusion by creating 'strict implication', and called that implication. | |
| From: comment on B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Willard Quine - Reply to Professor Marcus p.177 | |
| A reaction: [A compession of Quine's paragraph]. All of this assumes that logicians can give an accurate account of what if...then means, when ordinary usage is broad and vague. Strict implication seems to drain all the normal meaning out of 'if...then'. |
| 9359 | Russell's implication means that random sentences imply one another [Lewis,CI on Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: In Mr Russell's idea of implication, if twenty random sentences from a newspaper were put in a hat, and two of them drawn at random, one will certainly imply the other, and it is an even bet the implication will be mutual. | |
| From: comment on B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by C.I. Lewis - A Pragmatic Conception of the A Priori p.366 | |
| A reaction: This sort of lament leads modern logicians to suggest 'relevance' as an important criterion. It certainly seems odd that so-called 'classical logic' should contain a principle so at variance with everyday reasoning. |
| 21707 | Russell unusually saw logic as 'interpreted' (though very general, and neutral) [Russell/Whitehead, by Linsky,B] |
| Full Idea: Russell did not view logic as an uninterpreted calculus awaiting interpretations [the modern view]. Rather, logic is a single 'interpreted' body of a priori truths, of propositions rather than sentence forms - but maximally general and topic neutral. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Bernard Linsky - Russell's Metaphysical Logic 1 | |
| A reaction: This is the view which Wittgenstein challenged, saying logic is just conventional. Linsky claims that Russell's logicism is much more plausible, once you understand his view of logic. |
| 13632 | Finding the logical form of a sentence is difficult, and there are no criteria of correctness [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is sometimes difficult to find a formula that is a suitable counterpart of a particular sentence of natural language, and there is no acclaimed criterion for what counts as a good, or even acceptable, 'translation'. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.1) |
| 10036 | In 'Principia' a new abstract theory of relations appeared, and was applied [Russell/Whitehead, by Gödel] |
| Full Idea: In 'Principia' a young science was enriched with a new abstract theory of relations, ..and not only Cantor's set theory but also ordinary arithmetic and the theory of measurement are treated from this abstract relational standpoint. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Kurt Gödel - Russell's Mathematical Logic p.448 | |
| A reaction: I presume this is accounting for relations in terms of ordered sets. |
| 13674 | We might reduce ontology by using truth of sentences and terms, instead of using objects satisfying models [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The main role of substitutional semantics is to reduce ontology. As an alternative to model-theoretic semantics for formal languages, the idea is to replace the 'satisfaction' relation of formulas (by objects) with the 'truth' of sentences (using terms). | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.1.4) | |
| A reaction: I find this very appealing, and Ruth Barcan Marcus is the person to look at. My intuition is that logic should have no ontology at all, as it is just about how inference works, not about how things are. Shapiro offers a compromise. |
| 13633 | 'Satisfaction' is a function from models, assignments, and formulas to {true,false} [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 'satisfaction' relation may be thought of as a function from models, assignments, and formulas to the truth values {true,false}. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: This at least makes clear that satisfaction is not the same as truth. Now you have to understand how Tarski can define truth in terms of satisfaction. |
| 13644 | Semantics for models uses set-theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Typically, model-theoretic semantics is formulated in set theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 2.5.1) |
| 13636 | An axiomatization is 'categorical' if its models are isomorphic, so there is really only one interpretation [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: An axiomatization is 'categorical' if all its models are isomorphic to one another; ..hence it has 'essentially only one' interpretation [Veblen 1904]. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.2.1) |
| 13670 | Categoricity can't be reached in a first-order language [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Categoricity cannot be attained in a first-order language. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.3) |
| 13658 | Downward Löwenheim-Skolem: each satisfiable countable set always has countable models [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A language has the Downward Löwenheim-Skolem property if each satisfiable countable set of sentences has a model whose domain is at most countable. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: This means you can't employ an infinite model to represent a fact about a countable set. |
| 13648 | The Löwenheim-Skolem theorems show an explosion of infinite models, so 1st-order is useless for infinity [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The Löwenheim-Skolem theorems mean that no first-order theory with an infinite model is categorical. If Γ has an infinite model, then it has a model of every infinite cardinality. So first-order languages cannot characterize infinite structures. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: So much of the debate about different logics hinges on characterizing 'infinite structures' - whatever they are! Shapiro is a leading structuralist in mathematics, so he wants second-order logic to help with his project. |
| 13675 | Substitutional semantics only has countably many terms, so Upward Löwenheim-Skolem trivially fails [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The Upward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem fails (trivially) with substitutional semantics. If there are only countably many terms of the language, then there are no uncountable substitution models. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.1.4) | |
| A reaction: Better and better. See Idea 13674. Why postulate more objects than you can possibly name? I'm even suspicious of all real numbers, because you can't properly define them in finite terms. Shapiro objects that the uncountable can't be characterized. |
| 13659 | Upward Löwenheim-Skolem: each infinite model has infinite models of all sizes [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A language has the Upward Löwenheim-Skolem property if for each set of sentences whose model has an infinite domain, then it has a model at least as big as each infinite cardinal. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: This means you can't have a countable model to represent a fact about infinite sets. |
| 13635 | 'Weakly sound' if every theorem is a logical truth; 'sound' if every deduction is a semantic consequence [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A logic is 'weakly sound' if every theorem is a logical truth, and 'strongly sound', or simply 'sound', if every deduction from Γ is a semantic consequence of Γ. Soundness indicates that the deductive system is faithful to the semantics. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: Similarly, 'weakly complete' is when every logical truth is a theorem. |
| 13628 | We can live well without completeness in logic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: We can live without completeness in logic, and live well. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: This is the kind of heady suggestion that American philosophers love to make. Sounds OK to me, though. Our ability to draw good inferences should be expected to outrun our ability to actually prove them. Completeness is for wimps. |
| 13630 | Non-compactness is a strength of second-order logic, enabling characterisation of infinite structures [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is sometimes said that non-compactness is a defect of second-order logic, but it is a consequence of a crucial strength - its ability to give categorical characterisations of infinite structures. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: The dispute between fans of first- and second-order may hinge on their attitude to the infinite. I note that Skolem, who was not keen on the infinite, stuck to first-order. Should we launch a new Skolemite Crusade? |
| 13646 | Compactness is derived from soundness and completeness [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Compactness is a corollary of soundness and completeness. If Γ is not satisfiable, then, by completeness, Γ is not consistent. But the deductions contain only finite premises. So a finite subset shows the inconsistency. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: [this is abbreviated, but a proof of compactness] Since all worthwhile logics are sound, this effectively means that completeness entails compactness. |
| 13661 | A language is 'semantically effective' if its logical truths are recursively enumerable [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A logical language is 'semantically effective' if the collection of logically true sentences is a recursively enumerable set of strings. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 6.5) |
| 13641 | Complex numbers can be defined as reals, which are defined as rationals, then integers, then naturals [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: 'Definitions' of integers as pairs of naturals, rationals as pairs of integers, reals as Cauchy sequences of rationals, and complex numbers as pairs of reals are reductive foundations of various fields. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: On p.30 (bottom) Shapiro objects that in the process of reduction the numbers acquire properties they didn't have before. |
| 13676 | Only higher-order languages can specify that 0,1,2,... are all the natural numbers that there are [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The main problem of characterizing the natural numbers is to state, somehow, that 0,1,2,.... are all the numbers that there are. We have seen that this can be accomplished with a higher-order language, but not in a first-order language. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.1.4) |
| 13677 | Natural numbers are the finite ordinals, and integers are equivalence classes of pairs of finite ordinals [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: By convention, the natural numbers are the finite ordinals, the integers are certain equivalence classes of pairs of finite ordinals, etc. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.3) |
| 18248 | A real number is the class of rationals less than the number [Russell/Whitehead, by Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: For Russell the real number 2 is the class of rationals less than 2 (i.e. 2/1). ...Notice that on this definition, real numbers are classes of rational numbers. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 5.2 |
| 13652 | The 'continuum' is the cardinality of the powerset of a denumerably infinite set [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 'continuum' is the cardinality of the powerset of a denumerably infinite set. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5.1.2) |
| 13657 | First-order arithmetic can't even represent basic number theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Few theorists consider first-order arithmetic to be an adequate representation of even basic number theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5 n28) | |
| A reaction: This will be because of Idea 13656. Even 'basic' number theory will include all sorts of vast infinities, and that seems to be where the trouble is. |
| 18152 | Russell takes numbers to be classes, but then reduces the classes to numerical quantifiers [Russell/Whitehead, by Bostock] |
| Full Idea: Although Russell takes numbers to be certain classes, his 'no-class' theory then eliminates all mention of classes in favour of the 'propositional functions' that define them; and in the case of the numbers these just are the numerical quantifiers. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by David Bostock - Philosophy of Mathematics 9.B.4 |
| 13656 | Some sets of natural numbers are definable in set-theory but not in arithmetic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There are sets of natural numbers definable in set-theory but not in arithmetic. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5.3.3) |
| 10025 | Russell and Whitehead took arithmetic to be higher-order logic [Russell/Whitehead, by Hodes] |
| Full Idea: Russell and Whitehead took arithmetic to be higher-order logic, ..and came close to identifying numbers with numerical quantifiers. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Harold Hodes - Logicism and Ontological Commits. of Arithmetic p.148 | |
| A reaction: The point here is 'higher-order'. |
| 10037 | 'Principia' lacks a precise statement of the syntax [Gödel on Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: What is missing, above all, in 'Principia', is a precise statement of the syntax of the formalism. | |
| From: comment on B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Kurt Gödel - Russell's Mathematical Logic p.448 |
| 8683 | Russell and Whitehead were not realists, but embraced nearly all of maths in logic [Russell/Whitehead, by Friend] |
| Full Idea: Unlike Frege, Russell and Whitehead were not realists about mathematical objects, and whereas Frege thought that only arithmetic and analysis are branches of logic, they think the vast majority of mathematics (including geometry) is essentially logical. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 3.1 | |
| A reaction: If, in essence, Descartes reduced geometry to algebra (by inventing co-ordinates), then geometry ought to be included. It is characteristic of Russell's hubris to want to embrace everything. |
| 10093 | The ramified theory of types used propositional functions, and covered bound variables [Russell/Whitehead, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: Russell and Whitehead's ramified theory of types worked not with sets, but with propositional functions (similar to Frege's concepts), with a more restrictive assignment of variables, insisting that bound, as well as free, variables be of lower type. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.3 | |
| A reaction: I don't fully understand this (and no one seems much interested any more), but I think variables are a key notion, and there is something interesting going on here. I am intrigued by ordinary language which behaves like variables. |
| 8691 | The Russell/Whitehead type theory was limited, and was not really logic [Friend on Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: The Russell/Whitehead type theory reduces mathematics to a consistent founding discipline, but is criticised for not really being logic. They could not prove the existence of infinite sets, and introduced a non-logical 'axiom of reducibility'. | |
| From: comment on B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 3.6 | |
| A reaction: To have reduced most of mathematics to a founding discipline sounds like quite an achievement, and its failure to be based in pure logic doesn't sound too bad. However, it seems to reduce some maths to just other maths. |
| 13664 | Logicism is distinctive in seeking a universal language, and denying that logic is a series of abstractions [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is claimed that aiming at a universal language for all contexts, and the thesis that logic does not involve a process of abstraction, separates the logicists from algebraists and mathematicians, and also from modern model theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.1) | |
| A reaction: I am intuitively drawn to the idea that logic is essentially the result of a series of abstractions, so this gives me a further reason not to be a logicist. Shapiro cites Goldfarb 1979 and van Heijenoort 1967. Logicists reduce abstraction to logic. |
| 10305 | In 'Principia Mathematica', logic is exceeded in the axioms of infinity and reducibility, and in the domains [Bernays on Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: In the system of 'Principia Mathematica', it is not only the axioms of infinity and reducibility which go beyond pure logic, but also the initial conception of a universal domain of individuals and of a domain of predicates. | |
| From: comment on B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913], p.267) by Paul Bernays - On Platonism in Mathematics p.267 | |
| A reaction: This sort of criticism seems to be the real collapse of the logicist programme, rather than Russell's paradox, or Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. It just became impossible to stick strictly to logic in the reduction of arithmetic. |
| 13625 | Mathematics and logic have no border, and logic must involve mathematics and its ontology [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: I extend Quinean holism to logic itself; there is no sharp border between mathematics and logic, especially the logic of mathematics. One cannot expect to do logic without incorporating some mathematics and accepting at least some of its ontology. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: I have strong sales resistance to this proposal. Mathematics may have hijacked logic and warped it for its own evil purposes, but if logic is just the study of inferences then it must be more general than to apply specifically to mathematics. |
| 8684 | Russell and Whitehead consider the paradoxes to indicate that we create mathematical reality [Russell/Whitehead, by Friend] |
| Full Idea: Russell and Whitehead are particularly careful to avoid paradox, and consider the paradoxes to indicate that we create mathematical reality. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics 3.1 | |
| A reaction: This strikes me as quite a good argument. It is certainly counterintuitive that reality, and abstractions from reality, would contain contradictions. The realist view would be that we have paradoxes because we have misdescribed the facts. |
| 8746 | To avoid vicious circularity Russell produced ramified type theory, but Ramsey simplified it [Russell/Whitehead, by Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Russell insisted on the vicious circle principle, and thus rejected impredicative definitions, which resulted in an unwieldy ramified type theory, with the ad hoc axiom of reducibility. Ramsey's simpler theory was impredicative and avoided the axiom. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics 5.2 | |
| A reaction: Nowadays the theory of types seems to have been given up, possibly because it has no real attraction if it lacks the strict character which Russell aspired to. |
| 13663 | Some reject formal properties if they are not defined, or defined impredicatively [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Some authors (Poincaré and Russell, for example) were disposed to reject properties that are not definable, or are definable only impredicatively. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.1) | |
| A reaction: I take Quine to be the culmination of this line of thought, with his general rejection of 'attributes' in logic and in metaphysics. |
| 13638 | Properties are often seen as intensional; equiangular and equilateral are different, despite identity of objects [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Properties are often taken to be intensional; equiangular and equilateral are thought to be different properties of triangles, even though any triangle is equilateral if and only if it is equiangular. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.3) | |
| A reaction: Many logicians seem to want to treat properties as sets of objects (red being just the set of red things), but this looks like a desperate desire to say everything in first-order logic, where only objects are available to quantify over. |
| 12033 | An object is identical with itself, and no different indiscernible object can share that [Russell/Whitehead, by Adams,RM] |
| Full Idea: Trivially, the Identity of Indiscernibles says that two individuals, Castor and Pollux, cannot have all properties in common. For Castor must have the properties of being identical with Castor and not being identical with Pollux, which Pollux can't share. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913], I p.57) by Robert Merrihew Adams - Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity 2 | |
| A reaction: I suspect that either the property of being identical with itself is quite vacuous, or it is parasytic on primitive identity, or it is the criterion which is actually used to define identity. Either way, I don't find this claim very illuminating. |
| 10040 | Russell showed, through the paradoxes, that our basic logical intuitions are self-contradictory [Russell/Whitehead, by Gödel] |
| Full Idea: By analyzing the paradoxes to which Cantor's set theory had led, ..Russell brought to light the amazing fact that our logical intuitions (concerning such notions as truth, concept, being, class) are self-contradictory. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Kurt Gödel - Russell's Mathematical Logic p.452 | |
| A reaction: The main intuition that failed was, I take it, that every concept has an extension, that is, there are always objects which will or could fall under the concept. |
| 21725 | The multiple relations theory says assertions about propositions are about their ingredients [Russell/Whitehead, by Linsky,B] |
| Full Idea: The multiple relations theory of judgement proposes that assertions about propositions are dependent upon genuine facts involving belief and other attitude relations, subjects of those attitudes, and the constituents of the belief. | |
| From: report of B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913]) by Bernard Linsky - Russell's Metaphysical Logic 7.2 | |
| A reaction: This seems to require a commitment to universals (especially relations) with which we can be directly acquainted. I prefer propositions, but as mental entities, not platonic entities. |
| 23474 | A judgement is a complex entity, of mind and various objects [Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: When a judgement occurs, there is a certain complex entity, composed of the mind and the various objects of the judgement. | |
| From: B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913], p.44) | |
| A reaction: This is Russell's multiple-relation theory of judgement, which replaced his earlier belief in unified propositions (now 'false abstractions'). He seems to have accepted Locke's view, that the act of judgement produces the unity. |
| 23455 | The meaning of 'Socrates is human' is completed by a judgement [Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: When I judge 'Socrates is human', the meaning is completed by the act of judging. | |
| From: B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913], p.44), quoted by Michael Morris - Guidebook to Wittgenstein's Tractatus | |
| A reaction: Morris says this is Russell's multiple-relations theory of judgement. The theory accompanies the rejection of the concept of the unified proposition. When I hear 'Socrates had a mole on his shoulder' I get the meaning without judging. |
| 23480 | The multiple relation theory of judgement couldn't explain the unity of sentences [Morris,M on Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: When Russell moved to his multiple relation theory of judgement …he then faced difficulties making sense of the unity of sentences. | |
| From: comment on B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913], p.44) by Michael Morris - Guidebook to Wittgenstein's Tractatus 3A | |
| A reaction: Roughly, he seems committed to saying that there is only unity if you think there is unity; there is no unity in a sentence prior to the act of judgement. |
| 18275 | Only the act of judging completes the meaning of a statement [Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: When I judge 'Socrates is human', the meaning is completed by the act of judging, and we no longer have an incomplete symbol. | |
| From: B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913], p.44), quoted by J. Alberto Coffa - The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap | |
| A reaction: Personally I would have thought that you needed to know the meaning properly before you could make the judgement, but then he is Bertrand Russell and I'm not. |
| 23453 | Propositions as objects of judgement don't exist, because we judge several objects, not one [Russell/Whitehead] |
| Full Idea: A 'proposition', in the sense in which a proposition is supposed to be the object of a judgement, is a false abstraction, because a judgement has several objects, not one. | |
| From: B Russell/AN Whitehead (Principia Mathematica [1913], p.44), quoted by Michael Morris - Guidebook to Wittgenstein's Tractatus 2E | |
| A reaction: This is the rejection of the 'Russellian' theory of propositions, in favour of his multiple-relations theory of judgement. But why don't the related objects add up to a proposition about a state of affairs? |
| 22489 | 'Good' is an attributive adjective like 'large', not predicative like 'red' [Geach, by Foot] |
| Full Idea: Geach puts 'good' in the class of attributive adjectives, such as 'large' and 'small', contrasting such adjectives with 'predicative' adjectives such as 'red'. | |
| From: report of Peter Geach (Good and Evil [1956]) by Philippa Foot - Natural Goodness Intro | |
| A reaction: [In Analysis 17, and 'Theories of Ethics' ed Foot] Thus any object can simply be red, but something can only be large or small 'for a rat' or 'for a car'. Hence nothing is just good, but always a good so-and-so. This is Aristotelian, and Foot loves it. |