Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'fragments/reports', 'Set Theory' and 'Letter to Frege 29.12.1899'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


14 ideas

3. Truth / G. Axiomatic Truth / 1. Axiomatic Truth
If axioms and their implications have no contradictions, they pass my criterion of truth and existence [Hilbert]
     Full Idea: If the arbitrarily given axioms do not contradict each other with all their consequences, then they are true and the things defined by the axioms exist. For me this is the criterion of truth and existence.
     From: David Hilbert (Letter to Frege 29.12.1899 [1899]), quoted by R Kaplan / E Kaplan - The Art of the Infinite 2 'Mind'
     A reaction: If an axiom says something equivalent to 'fairies exist, but they are totally undetectable', this would seem to avoid contradiction with anything, and hence be true. Hilbert's idea sounds crazy to me. He developed full Formalism later.
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / b. Axiom of Extensionality I
Extensionality: ∀x ∀y (∀z (z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y) → x = y) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Extensionality: ∀x ∀y (∀z (z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y) → x = y). That is, a set is determined by its members. If every z in one set is also in the other set, then the two sets are the same.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.5)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / c. Axiom of Pairing II
Pairing: ∀x ∀y ∃z (x ∈ z ∧ y ∈ z) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Pairing: ∀x ∀y ∃z (x ∈ z ∧ y ∈ z). Any pair of entities must form a set.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.6)
     A reaction: Repeated applications of this can build the hierarchy of sets.
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / d. Axiom of Unions III
Union: ∀F ∃A ∀Y ∀x (x ∈ Y ∧ Y ∈ F → x ∈ A) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Union: ∀F ∃A ∀Y ∀x (x ∈ Y ∧ Y ∈ F → x ∈ A). That is, the union of a set (all the members of the members of the set) must also be a set.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.6)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / f. Axiom of Infinity V
Infinity: ∃x (0 ∈ x ∧ ∀y ∈ x (S(y) ∈ x) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Infinity: ∃x (0 ∈ x ∧ ∀y ∈ x (S(y) ∈ x). That is, there is a set which contains zero and all of its successors, hence all the natural numbers. The principal of induction rests on this axiom.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.7)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / g. Axiom of Powers VI
Power Set: ∀x ∃y ∀z(z ⊂ x → z ∈ y) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Power Set Axiom: ∀x ∃y ∀z(z ⊂ x → z ∈ y). That is, there is a set y which contains all of the subsets of a given set. Hence we define P(x) = {z : z ⊂ x}.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.10)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / h. Axiom of Replacement VII
Replacement: ∀x∈A ∃!y φ(x,y) → ∃Y ∀X∈A ∃y∈Y φ(x,y) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Replacement Scheme: ∀x ∈ A ∃!y φ(x,y) → ∃Y ∀X ∈ A ∃y ∈ Y φ(x,y). That is, any function from a set A will produce another set Y.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.6)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / i. Axiom of Foundation VIII
Foundation:∀x(∃y(y∈x) → ∃y(y∈x ∧ ¬∃z(z∈x ∧ z∈y))) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Foundation: ∀x (∃y(y ∈ x) → ∃y(y ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z(z ∈ x ∧ z ∈ y))). Aka the 'Axiom of Regularity'. Combined with Choice, it means there are no downward infinite chains.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §3.4)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / j. Axiom of Choice IX
Choice: ∀A ∃R (R well-orders A) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Choice: ∀A ∃R (R well-orders A). That is, for every set, there must exist another set which imposes a well-ordering on it. There are many equivalent versions. It is not needed in elementary parts of set theory.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.6)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / k. Axiom of Existence
Set Existence: ∃x (x = x) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Set Existence: ∃x (x = x). This says our universe is non-void. Under most developments of formal logic, this is derivable from the logical axioms and thus redundant, but we do so for emphasis.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.5)
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / n. Axiom of Comprehension
Comprehension: ∃y ∀x (x ∈ y ↔ x ∈ z ∧ φ) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Comprehension Scheme: for each formula φ without y free, the universal closure of this is an axiom: ∃y ∀x (x ∈ y ↔ x ∈ z ∧ φ). That is, there must be a set y if it can be defined by the formula φ.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §1.5)
     A reaction: Unrestricted comprehension leads to Russell's paradox, so restricting it in some way (e.g. by the Axiom of Specification) is essential.
4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 4. Axioms for Sets / o. Axiom of Constructibility V = L
Constructibility: V = L (all sets are constructible) [Kunen]
     Full Idea: Axiom of Constructability: this is the statement V = L (i.e. ∀x ∃α(x ∈ L(α)). That is, the universe of well-founded von Neumann sets is the same as the universe of sets which are actually constructible. A possible axiom.
     From: Kenneth Kunen (Set Theory [1980], §6.3)
25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 5. Education / b. Education principles
Learned men gain more in one day than others do in a lifetime [Posidonius]
     Full Idea: In a single day there lies open to men of learning more than there ever does to the unenlightened in the longest of lifetimes.
     From: Posidonius (fragments/reports [c.95 BCE]), quoted by Seneca the Younger - Letters from a Stoic 078
     A reaction: These remarks endorsing the infinite superiority of the educated to the uneducated seem to have been popular in late antiquity. It tends to be the religions which discourage great learning, especially in their emphasis on a single book.
27. Natural Reality / D. Time / 1. Nature of Time / d. Time as measure
Time is an interval of motion, or the measure of speed [Posidonius, by Stobaeus]
     Full Idea: Posidonius defined time thus: it is an interval of motion, or the measure of speed and slowness.
     From: report of Posidonius (fragments/reports [c.95 BCE]) by John Stobaeus - Anthology 1.08.42
     A reaction: Hm. Can we define motion or speed without alluding to time? Looks like we have to define them as a conjoined pair, which means we cannot fully understand either of them.