Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Abstract Objects: a Case Study', 'First-Order Logic' and 'Calculus Ratiocinator'

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


13 ideas

5. Theory of Logic / A. Overview of Logic / 1. Overview of Logic
Logic is the study of sound argument, or of certain artificial languages (or applying the latter to the former) [Hodges,W]
     Full Idea: A logic is a collection of closely related artificial languages, and its older meaning is the study of the rules of sound argument. The languages can be used as a framework for studying rules of argument.
     From: Wilfrid Hodges (First-Order Logic [2001], 1.1)
     A reaction: [Hodges then says he will stick to the languages] The suspicion is that one might confine the subject to the artificial languages simply because it is easier, and avoids the tricky philosophical questions. That approximates to computer programming.
5. Theory of Logic / I. Semantics of Logic / 1. Semantics of Logic
A formula needs an 'interpretation' of its constants, and a 'valuation' of its variables [Hodges,W]
     Full Idea: To have a truth-value, a first-order formula needs an 'interpretation' (I) of its constants, and a 'valuation' (ν) of its variables. Something in the world is attached to the constants; objects are attached to variables.
     From: Wilfrid Hodges (First-Order Logic [2001], 1.3)
There are three different standard presentations of semantics [Hodges,W]
     Full Idea: Semantic rules can be presented in 'Tarski style', where the interpretation-plus-valuation is reduced to the same question for simpler formulas, or the 'Henkin-Hintikka style' in terms of games, or the 'Barwise-Etchemendy style' for computers.
     From: Wilfrid Hodges (First-Order Logic [2001], 1.3)
     A reaction: I haven't yet got the hang of the latter two, but I note them to map the territory.
I |= φ means that the formula φ is true in the interpretation I [Hodges,W]
     Full Idea: I |= φ means that the formula φ is true in the interpretation I.
     From: Wilfrid Hodges (First-Order Logic [2001], 1.5)
     A reaction: [There should be no space between the vertical and the two horizontals!] This contrasts with |-, which means 'is proved in'. That is a syntactic or proof-theoretic symbol, whereas |= is a semantic symbol (involving truth).
5. Theory of Logic / J. Model Theory in Logic / 3. Löwenheim-Skolem Theorems
Down Löwenheim-Skolem: if a countable language has a consistent theory, that has a countable model [Hodges,W]
     Full Idea: Downward Löwenheim-Skolem (the weakest form): If L is a first-order language with at most countably many formulas, and T is a consistent theory in L. Then T has a model with at most countably many elements.
     From: Wilfrid Hodges (First-Order Logic [2001], 1.10)
Up Löwenheim-Skolem: if infinite models, then arbitrarily large models [Hodges,W]
     Full Idea: Upward Löwenheim-Skolem: every first-order theory with infinite models has arbitrarily large models.
     From: Wilfrid Hodges (First-Order Logic [2001], 1.10)
5. Theory of Logic / K. Features of Logics / 6. Compactness
If a first-order theory entails a sentence, there is a finite subset of the theory which entails it [Hodges,W]
     Full Idea: Compactness Theorem: suppose T is a first-order theory, ψ is a first-order sentence, and T entails ψ. Then there is a finite subset U of T such that U entails ψ.
     From: Wilfrid Hodges (First-Order Logic [2001], 1.10)
     A reaction: If entailment is possible, it can be done finitely.
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 6. Mathematics as Set Theory / a. Mathematics is set theory
A 'set' is a mathematically well-behaved class [Hodges,W]
     Full Idea: A 'set' is a mathematically well-behaved class.
     From: Wilfrid Hodges (First-Order Logic [2001], 1.6)
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 6. Logicism / c. Neo-logicism
Mathematics is both necessary and a priori because it really consists of logical truths [Yablo]
     Full Idea: Mathematics seems necessary because the real contents of mathematical statements are logical truths, which are necessary, and it seems a priori because logical truths really are a priori.
     From: Stephen Yablo (Abstract Objects: a Case Study [2002], 10)
     A reaction: Yablo says his logicism has a Kantian strain, because numbers and sets 'inscribed on our spectacles', but he takes a different view (in the present Idea) from Kant about where the necessity resides. Personally I am tempted by an a posteriori necessity.
6. Mathematics / C. Sources of Mathematics / 9. Fictional Mathematics
Putting numbers in quantifiable position (rather than many quantifiers) makes expression easier [Yablo]
     Full Idea: Saying 'the number of Fs is 5', instead of using five quantifiers, puts the numeral in quantifiable position, which brings expressive advantages. 'There are more sheep in the field than cows' is an infinite disjunction, expressible in finite compass.
     From: Stephen Yablo (Abstract Objects: a Case Study [2002], 08)
     A reaction: See Hofweber with similar thoughts. This idea I take to be a key one in explaining many metaphysical confusions. The human mind just has a strong tendency to objectify properties, relations, qualities, categories etc. - for expression and for reasoning.
7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 7. Abstract/Concrete / a. Abstract/concrete
Concrete objects have few essential properties, but properties of abstractions are mostly essential [Yablo]
     Full Idea: Objects like me have a few essential properties, and numerous accidental ones. Abstract objects are a different story. The intrinsic properties of the empty set are mostly essential. The relations of numbers are also mostly essential.
     From: Stephen Yablo (Abstract Objects: a Case Study [2002], 01)
We are thought to know concreta a posteriori, and many abstracta a priori [Yablo]
     Full Idea: Our knowledge of concreta is a posteriori, but our knowledge of numbers, at least, has often been considered a priori.
     From: Stephen Yablo (Abstract Objects: a Case Study [2002], 02)
11. Knowledge Aims / C. Knowing Reality / 3. Idealism / a. Idealism
A whole is just its parts, but there are no smallest parts, so only minds and perceptions exist [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: The whole, if it is assumed to be body or matter, is nothing other than all of its parts; but this is absurd, since there aren't any smallest parts. Therefore there really exist only minds and their perceptions.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (Calculus Ratiocinator [1679], A6.4.279), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 7
     A reaction: Leibniz is sometimes labelled as an 'idealist', but this text is unusual in being so explicit, and he was mainly concerned to explain the reality of individual bodies. Monads were his final attempt to do this, not an attempt to escape into pure minds.