7 ideas
| 19323 | 'Snow is white' depends on meaning; whether snow is white depends on snow [Etchemendy] |
| Full Idea: The difference between (a) snow is white, and (b) 'snow is white' true is that the first makes a claim that only depends on the colour of snow, while the second depends both on the colour of snow and the meaning of the sentence 'snow is white'. | |
| From: John Etchemendy (Tarski on Truth and Logical Consequence [1988], p.61), quoted by Richard L. Kirkham - Theories of Truth: a Critical Introduction 5.7 | |
| A reaction: This is a helpful first step for those who have reached screaming point by being continually offered this apparently vacuous equivalence. This sentence works well if that stuff is a particular colour. |
| 19137 | We can get a substantive account of Tarski's truth by adding primitive 'true' to the object language [Etchemendy] |
| Full Idea: Getting from a Tarskian definition of truth to a substantive account of the semantic properties of the object language may involve as little as the reintroduction of a primitive notion of truth. | |
| From: John Etchemendy (Tarski on Truth and Logical Consequence [1988], p.60), quoted by Donald Davidson - Truth and Predication 1 | |
| A reaction: This is, I think, the first stage in modern developments of axiomatic truth theories. The first problem would be to make sure you haven't reintroduced the Liar Paradox. You need axioms to give behaviour to the 'true' predicate. |
| 17611 | We want the essence of continuity, by showing its origin in arithmetic [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: It then only remained to discover its true origin in the elements of arithmetic and thus at the same time to secure a real definition of the essence of continuity. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Continuity and Irrational Numbers [1872], Intro) | |
| A reaction: [He seeks the origin of the theorem that differential calculus deals with continuous magnitude, and he wants an arithmetical rather than geometrical demonstration; the result is his famous 'cut']. |
| 10572 | A cut between rational numbers creates and defines an irrational number [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: Whenever we have to do a cut produced by no rational number, we create a new, an irrational number, which we regard as completely defined by this cut. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Continuity and Irrational Numbers [1872], §4) | |
| A reaction: Fine quotes this to show that the Dedekind Cut creates the irrational numbers, rather than hitting them. A consequence is that the irrational numbers depend on the rational numbers, and so can never be identical with any of them. See Idea 10573. |
| 17612 | Arithmetic is just the consequence of counting, which is the successor operation [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: I regard the whole of arithmetic as a necessary, or at least natural, consequence of the simplest arithmetic act, that of counting, and counting itself is nothing else than the successive creation of the infinite series of positive integers. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Continuity and Irrational Numbers [1872], §1) | |
| A reaction: Thus counting roots arithmetic in the world, the successor operation is the essence of counting, and the Dedekind-Peano axioms are built around successors, and give the essence of arithmetic. Unfashionable now, but I love it. Intransitive counting? |
| 18087 | If x changes by less and less, it must approach a limit [Dedekind] |
| Full Idea: If in the variation of a magnitude x we can for every positive magnitude δ assign a corresponding position from and after which x changes by less than δ then x approaches a limiting value. | |
| From: Richard Dedekind (Continuity and Irrational Numbers [1872], p.27), quoted by Philip Kitcher - The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge 10.7 | |
| A reaction: [Kitcher says he 'showed' this, rather than just stating it] |
| 4242 | Pure supervenience explains nothing, and is a sign of something fundamental we don't know [Nagel] |
| Full Idea: Pure, unexplained supervenience is never a solution to a problem but a sign that there is something fundamental we don't know. | |
| From: Thomas Nagel (The Psychophysical Nexus [2000], §III) | |
| A reaction: This seems right. It is not a theory or an explanation, merely the observation of a correlation which will require explanation. Why are they correlated? |