44 ideas
| 9724 | Until the 1960s the only semantics was truth-tables [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Until the 1960s standard truth-table semantics were the only ones that there were. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.10.1) | |
| A reaction: The 1960s presumably marked the advent of possible worlds. |
| 17884 | Mathematical set theory has many plausible stopping points, such as finitism, and predicativism [Koellner] |
| Full Idea: There are many coherent stopping points in the hierarchy of increasingly strong mathematical systems, starting with strict finitism, and moving up through predicativism to the higher reaches of set theory. | |
| From: Peter Koellner (On the Question of Absolute Undecidability [2006], Intro) |
| 17893 | 'Reflection principles' say the whole truth about sets can't be captured [Koellner] |
| Full Idea: Roughly speaking, 'reflection principles' assert that anything true in V [the set hierarchy] falls short of characterising V in that it is true within some earlier level. | |
| From: Peter Koellner (On the Question of Absolute Undecidability [2006], 2.1) |
| 9704 | 'ran R' indicates the 'range' of objects being related to [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: 'ran R' indicates the 'range' of a relation, that is, the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs and that are related to by the first objects. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9710 | We write F:A→B to indicate that A maps into B (the output of F on A is in B) [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: We write F : A → B to indicate that A maps into B, that is, the domain of relating things is set A, and the things related to are all in B. If we add that F = B, then A maps 'onto' B. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9707 | 'F(x)' is the unique value which F assumes for a value of x [Enderton] |
|
Full Idea:
F(x) is a 'function', which indicates the unique value which y takes in |
|
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9703 | 'dom R' indicates the 'domain' of objects having a relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: 'dom R' indicates the 'domain' of a relation, that is, the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs and that have that relation. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9705 | 'fld R' indicates the 'field' of all objects in the relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: 'fld R' indicates the 'field' of a relation, that is, the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs on either side of the relation. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9712 | A relation is 'symmetric' on a set if every ordered pair has the relation in both directions [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation is 'symmetric' on a set if every ordered pair in the set has the relation in both directions. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9713 | A relation is 'transitive' if it can be carried over from two ordered pairs to a third [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation is 'transitive' on a set if the relation can be carried over from two ordered pairs to a third. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9699 | The 'powerset' of a set is all the subsets of a given set [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The 'powerset' of a set is all the subsets of a given set. Thus: PA = {x : x ⊆ A}. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9700 | Two sets are 'disjoint' iff their intersection is empty [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Two sets are 'disjoint' iff their intersection is empty (i.e. they have no members in common). | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9702 | A 'domain' of a relation is the set of members of ordered pairs in the relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The 'domain' of a relation is the set of all objects that are members of ordered pairs that are members of the relation. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9701 | A 'relation' is a set of ordered pairs [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A 'relation' is a set of ordered pairs. The ordering relation on the numbers 0-3 is captured by - in fact it is - the set of ordered pairs {<0,1>,<0,2>,<0,3>,<1,2>,<1,3>,<2,3>}. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) | |
| A reaction: This can't quite be a definition of order among numbers, since it relies on the notion of a 'ordered' pair. |
| 9706 | A 'function' is a relation in which each object is related to just one other object [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A 'function' is a relation which is single-valued. That is, for each object, there is only one object in the function set to which that object is related. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9708 | A function 'maps A into B' if the relating things are set A, and the things related to are all in B [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A function 'maps A into B' if the domain of relating things is set A, and the things related to are all in B. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9709 | A function 'maps A onto B' if the relating things are set A, and the things related to are set B [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A function 'maps A onto B' if the domain of relating things is set A, and the things related to are set B. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9711 | A relation is 'reflexive' on a set if every member bears the relation to itself [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation is 'reflexive' on a set if every member of the set bears the relation to itself. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9714 | A relation satisfies 'trichotomy' if all pairs are either relations, or contain identical objects [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A relation satisfies 'trichotomy' on a set if every ordered pair is related (in either direction), or the objects are identical. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9717 | A set is 'dominated' by another if a one-to-one function maps the first set into a subset of the second [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A set is 'dominated' by another if a one-to-one function maps the first set into a subset of the second. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9715 | An 'equivalence relation' is a reflexive, symmetric and transitive binary relation [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: An 'equivalence relation' is a binary relation which is reflexive, and symmetric, and transitive. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9716 | We 'partition' a set into distinct subsets, according to each relation on its objects [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Equivalence classes will 'partition' a set. That is, it will divide it into distinct subsets, according to each relation on the set. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], Ch.0) |
| 9722 | Inference not from content, but from the fact that it was said, is 'conversational implicature' [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The process is dubbed 'conversational implicature' when the inference is not from the content of what has been said, but from the fact that it has been said. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.7.3) |
| 9718 | Validity is either semantic (what preserves truth), or proof-theoretic (following procedures) [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The point of logic is to give an account of the notion of validity,..in two standard ways: the semantic way says that a valid inference preserves truth (symbol |=), and the proof-theoretic way is defined in terms of purely formal procedures (symbol |-). | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.1.3..) | |
| A reaction: This division can be mirrored in mathematics, where it is either to do with counting or theorising about things in the physical world, or following sets of rules from axioms. Language can discuss reality, or play word-games. |
| 9721 | A logical truth or tautology is a logical consequence of the empty set [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A is a logical truth (tautology) (|= A) iff it is a semantic consequence of the empty set of premises (φ |= A), that is, every interpretation makes A true. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.3.4) | |
| A reaction: So the final column of every line of the truth table will be T. |
| 9994 | A truth assignment to the components of a wff 'satisfy' it if the wff is then True [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A truth assignment 'satisfies' a formula, or set of formulae, if it evaluates as True when all of its components have been assigned truth values. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: [very roughly what Enderton says!] The concept becomes most significant when a large set of wff's is pronounced 'satisfied' after a truth assignment leads to them all being true. |
| 9719 | A proof theory is 'sound' if its valid inferences entail semantic validity [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: If every proof-theoretically valid inference is semantically valid (so that |- entails |=), the proof theory is said to be 'sound'. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.1.7) |
| 9720 | A proof theory is 'complete' if semantically valid inferences entail proof-theoretic validity [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: If every semantically valid inference is proof-theoretically valid (so that |= entails |-), the proof-theory is said to be 'complete'. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.1.7) |
| 17894 | We have no argument to show a statement is absolutely undecidable [Koellner] |
| Full Idea: There is at present no solid argument to the effect that a given statement is absolutely undecidable. | |
| From: Peter Koellner (On the Question of Absolute Undecidability [2006], 5.3) |
| 9995 | Proof in finite subsets is sufficient for proof in an infinite set [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: If a wff is tautologically implied by a set of wff's, it is implied by a finite subset of them; and if every finite subset is satisfiable, then so is the whole set of wff's. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: [Enderton's account is more symbolic] He adds that this also applies to models. It is a 'theorem' because it can be proved. It is a major theorem in logic, because it brings the infinite under control, and who doesn't want that? |
| 9996 | Expressions are 'decidable' if inclusion in them (or not) can be proved [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: A set of expressions is 'decidable' iff there exists an effective procedure (qv) that, given some expression, will decide whether or not the expression is included in the set (i.e. doesn't contradict it). | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.7) | |
| A reaction: This is obviously a highly desirable feature for a really reliable system of expressions to possess. All finite sets are decidable, but some infinite sets are not. |
| 9997 | For a reasonable language, the set of valid wff's can always be enumerated [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: The Enumerability Theorem says that for a reasonable language, the set of valid wff's can be effectively enumerated. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: There are criteria for what makes a 'reasonable' language (probably specified to ensure enumerability!). Predicates and functions must be decidable, and the language must be finite. |
| 13373 | Typically, paradoxes are dealt with by dividing them into two groups, but the division is wrong [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: A natural principle is the same kind of paradox will have the same kind of solution. Standardly Ramsey's first group are solved by denying the existence of some totality, and the second group are less clear. But denial of the groups sink both. | |
| From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §5) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] This sums up the argument of Priest's paper, which is that it is Ramsey's division into two kinds (see Idea 13334) which is preventing us from getting to grips with the paradoxes. Priest, notoriously, just lives with them. |
| 13368 | The 'least indefinable ordinal' is defined by that very phrase [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: König: there are indefinable ordinals, and the least indefinable ordinal has just been defined in that very phrase. (Recall that something is definable iff there is a (non-indexical) noun-phrase that refers to it). | |
| From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §3) | |
| A reaction: Priest makes great subsequent use of this one, but it feels like a card trick. 'Everything indefinable has now been defined' (by the subject of this sentence)? König, of course, does manage to pick out one particular object. |
| 13370 | 'x is a natural number definable in less than 19 words' leads to contradiction [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: Berry: if we take 'x is a natural number definable in less than 19 words', we can generate a number which is and is not one of these numbers. | |
| From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §3) | |
| A reaction: [not enough space to spell this one out in full] |
| 13369 | By diagonalization we can define a real number that isn't in the definable set of reals [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: Richard: φ(x) is 'x is a definable real number between 0 and 1' and ψ(x) is 'x is definable'. We can define a real by diagonalization so that it is not in x. It is and isn't in the set of reals. | |
| From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §3) | |
| A reaction: [this isn't fully clear here because it is compressed] |
| 13366 | The least ordinal greater than the set of all ordinals is both one of them and not one of them [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: Burali-Forti: φ(x) is 'x is an ordinal', and so w is the set of all ordinals, On; δ(x) is the least ordinal greater than every member of x (abbreviation: log(x)). The contradiction is that log(On)∈On and log(On)∉On. | |
| From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §2) |
| 13367 | The next set up in the hierarchy of sets seems to be both a member and not a member of it [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: Mirimanoff: φ(x) is 'x is well founded', so that w is the cumulative hierarchy of sets, V; &delta(x) is just the power set of x, P(x). If x⊆V, then V∈V and V∉V, since δ(V) is just V itself. | |
| From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §2) |
| 13371 | If you know that a sentence is not one of the known sentences, you know its truth [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: In the family of the Liar is the Knower Paradox, where φ(x) is 'x is known to be true', and there is a set of known things, Kn. By knowing a sentence is not in the known sentences, you know its truth. | |
| From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §4) | |
| A reaction: [mostly my wording] |
| 13372 | There are Liar Pairs, and Liar Chains, which fit the same pattern as the basic Liar [Priest,G] |
| Full Idea: There are liar chains which fit the pattern of Transcendence and Closure, as can be seen with the simplest case of the Liar Pair. | |
| From: Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §4) | |
| A reaction: [Priest gives full details] Priest's idea is that Closure is when a set is announced as complete, and Transcendence is when the set is forced to expand. He claims that the two keep coming into conflict. |
| 17890 | There are at least eleven types of large cardinal, of increasing logical strength [Koellner] |
| Full Idea: Some of the standard large cardinals (in order of increasing (logical) strength) are: inaccessible, Mahlo, weakly compact, indescribable, Erdös, measurable, strong, Wodin, supercompact, huge etc. (...and ineffable). | |
| From: Peter Koellner (On the Question of Absolute Undecidability [2006], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: [I don't understand how cardinals can have 'logical strength', but I pass it on anyway] |
| 17887 | PA is consistent as far as we can accept, and we expand axioms to overcome limitations [Koellner] |
| Full Idea: To the extent that we are justified in accepting Peano Arithmetic we are justified in accepting its consistency, and so we know how to expand the axiom system so as to overcome the limitation [of Gödel's Second Theorem]. | |
| From: Peter Koellner (On the Question of Absolute Undecidability [2006], 1.1) | |
| A reaction: Each expansion brings a limitation, but then you can expand again. |
| 17891 | Arithmetical undecidability is always settled at the next stage up [Koellner] |
| Full Idea: The arithmetical instances of undecidability that arise at one stage of the hierarchy are settled at the next. | |
| From: Peter Koellner (On the Question of Absolute Undecidability [2006], 1.4) |
| 9723 | Sentences with 'if' are only conditionals if they can read as A-implies-B [Enderton] |
| Full Idea: Not all sentences using 'if' are conditionals. Consider 'if you want a banana, there is one in the kitchen'. The rough test is that a conditional can be rewritten as 'that A implies that B'. | |
| From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.6.4) |