104 ideas
| 8721 | An 'impredicative' definition seems circular, because it uses the term being defined [Friend] |
| 8680 | Classical definitions attempt to refer, but intuitionist/constructivist definitions actually create objects [Friend] |
| 3678 | Reductio ad absurdum proves an idea by showing that its denial produces contradiction [Friend] |
| 8705 | Anti-realists see truth as our servant, and epistemically contrained [Friend] |
| 9535 | 'Contradictory' propositions always differ in truth-value [Lemmon] |
| 9511 | We write the conditional 'if P (antecedent) then Q (consequent)' as P→Q [Lemmon] |
| 9510 | That proposition that either P or Q is their 'disjunction', written P∨Q [Lemmon] |
| 9512 | We write the 'negation' of P (not-P) as ¬ [Lemmon] |
| 9513 | We write 'P if and only if Q' as P↔Q; it is also P iff Q, or (P→Q)∧(Q→P) [Lemmon] |
| 9514 | If A and B are 'interderivable' from one another we may write A -||- B [Lemmon] |
| 9509 | That proposition that both P and Q is their 'conjunction', written P∧Q [Lemmon] |
| 9508 | The sign |- may be read as 'therefore' [Lemmon] |
| 9516 | A 'well-formed formula' follows the rules for variables, ¬, →, ∧, ∨, and ↔ [Lemmon] |
| 9517 | The 'scope' of a connective is the connective, the linked formulae, and the brackets [Lemmon] |
| 9519 | A 'substitution-instance' is a wff formed by consistent replacing variables with wffs [Lemmon] |
| 9529 | A wff is 'inconsistent' if all assignments to variables result in the value F [Lemmon] |
| 9531 | 'Contrary' propositions are never both true, so that ¬(A∧B) is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| 9534 | Two propositions are 'equivalent' if they mirror one another's truth-value [Lemmon] |
| 9530 | A wff is 'contingent' if produces at least one T and at least one F [Lemmon] |
| 9532 | 'Subcontrary' propositions are never both false, so that A∨B is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| 9533 | A 'implies' B if B is true whenever A is true (so that A→B is tautologous) [Lemmon] |
| 9528 | A wff is a 'tautology' if all assignments to variables result in the value T [Lemmon] |
| 9518 | A 'theorem' is the conclusion of a provable sequent with zero assumptions [Lemmon] |
| 9398 | ∧I: Given A and B, we may derive A∧B [Lemmon] |
| 9397 | CP: Given a proof of B from A as assumption, we may derive A→B [Lemmon] |
| 9394 | MPP: Given A and A→B, we may derive B [Lemmon] |
| 9402 | RAA: If assuming A will prove B∧¬B, then derive ¬A [Lemmon] |
| 9395 | MTT: Given ¬B and A→B, we derive ¬A [Lemmon] |
| 9400 | ∨I: Given either A or B separately, we may derive A∨B [Lemmon] |
| 9401 | ∨E: Derive C from A∨B, if C can be derived both from A and from B [Lemmon] |
| 9396 | DN: Given A, we may derive ¬¬A [Lemmon] |
| 9393 | A: we may assume any proposition at any stage [Lemmon] |
| 9399 | ∧E: Given A∧B, we may derive either A or B separately [Lemmon] |
| 9521 | 'Modus tollendo ponens' (MTP) says ¬P, P ∨ Q |- Q [Lemmon] |
| 9522 | 'Modus ponendo tollens' (MPT) says P, ¬(P ∧ Q) |- ¬Q [Lemmon] |
| 9525 | We can change conditionals into negated conjunctions with P→Q -||- ¬(P ∧ ¬Q) [Lemmon] |
| 9524 | We can change conditionals into disjunctions with P→Q -||- ¬P ∨ Q [Lemmon] |
| 9523 | De Morgan's Laws make negated conjunctions/disjunctions into non-negated disjunctions/conjunctions [Lemmon] |
| 9527 | The Distributive Laws can rearrange a pair of conjunctions or disjunctions [Lemmon] |
| 9526 | We can change conjunctions into negated conditionals with P→Q -||- ¬(P → ¬Q) [Lemmon] |
| 9537 | Truth-tables are good for showing invalidity [Lemmon] |
| 9538 | A truth-table test is entirely mechanical, but this won't work for more complex logic [Lemmon] |
| 8713 | In classical/realist logic the connectives are defined by truth-tables [Friend] |
| 9536 | If any of the nine rules of propositional logic are applied to tautologies, the result is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| 9539 | Propositional logic is complete, since all of its tautologous sequents are derivable [Lemmon] |
| 13909 | Write '(∀x)(...)' to mean 'take any x: then...', and '(∃x)(...)' to mean 'there is an x such that....' [Lemmon] |
| 13902 | 'Gm' says m has property G, and 'Pmn' says m has relation P to n [Lemmon] |
| 13911 | The 'symbols' are bracket, connective, term, variable, predicate letter, reverse-E [Lemmon] |
| 13910 | Our notation uses 'predicate-letters' (for 'properties'), 'variables', 'proper names', 'connectives' and 'quantifiers' [Lemmon] |
| 13904 | Universal Elimination (UE) lets us infer that an object has F, from all things having F [Lemmon] |
| 13906 | With finite named objects, we can generalise with &-Intro, but otherwise we need ∀-Intro [Lemmon] |
| 13908 | UE all-to-one; UI one-to-all; EI arbitrary-to-one; EE proof-to-one [Lemmon] |
| 13901 | Predicate logic uses propositional connectives and variables, plus new introduction and elimination rules [Lemmon] |
| 13903 | Universal elimination if you start with the universal, introduction if you want to end with it [Lemmon] |
| 13905 | If there is a finite domain and all objects have names, complex conjunctions can replace universal quantifiers [Lemmon] |
| 13900 | 'Some Frenchmen are generous' is rendered by (∃x)(Fx→Gx), and not with the conditional → [Lemmon] |
| 8708 | Double negation elimination is not valid in intuitionist logic [Friend] |
| 8694 | Free logic was developed for fictional or non-existent objects [Friend] |
| 8665 | A 'proper subset' of A contains only members of A, but not all of them [Friend] |
| 8672 | A 'powerset' is all the subsets of a set [Friend] |
| 8677 | Set theory makes a minimum ontological claim, that the empty set exists [Friend] |
| 8666 | Infinite sets correspond one-to-one with a subset [Friend] |
| 8682 | Major set theories differ in their axioms, and also over the additional axioms of choice and infinity [Friend] |
| 9520 | The paradoxes of material implication are P |- Q → P, and ¬P |- P → Q [Lemmon] |
| 8709 | The law of excluded middle is syntactic; it just says A or not-A, not whether they are true or false [Friend] |
| 8711 | Intuitionists read the universal quantifier as "we have a procedure for checking every..." [Friend] |
| 8675 | Paradoxes can be solved by talking more loosely of 'classes' instead of 'sets' [Friend] |
| 8674 | The Burali-Forti paradox asks whether the set of all ordinals is itself an ordinal [Friend] |
| 8667 | The 'integers' are the positive and negative natural numbers, plus zero [Friend] |
| 8668 | The 'rational' numbers are those representable as fractions [Friend] |
| 8670 | A number is 'irrational' if it cannot be represented as a fraction [Friend] |
| 8661 | The natural numbers are primitive, and the ordinals are up one level of abstraction [Friend] |
| 8664 | Cardinal numbers answer 'how many?', with the order being irrelevant [Friend] |
| 8671 | The 'real' numbers (rationals and irrationals combined) is the Continuum, which has no gaps [Friend] |
| 8663 | Raising omega to successive powers of omega reveal an infinity of infinities [Friend] |
| 8662 | The first limit ordinal is omega (greater, but without predecessor), and the second is twice-omega [Friend] |
| 8669 | Between any two rational numbers there is an infinite number of rational numbers [Friend] |
| 8676 | Is mathematics based on sets, types, categories, models or topology? [Friend] |
| 8678 | Most mathematical theories can be translated into the language of set theory [Friend] |
| 8701 | The number 8 in isolation from the other numbers is of no interest [Friend] |
| 8702 | In structuralism the number 8 is not quite the same in different structures, only equivalent [Friend] |
| 8699 | Are structures 'ante rem' (before reality), or are they 'in re' (grounded in physics)? [Friend] |
| 8696 | Structuralist says maths concerns concepts about base objects, not base objects themselves [Friend] |
| 8695 | Structuralism focuses on relations, predicates and functions, with objects being inessential [Friend] |
| 8700 | 'In re' structuralism says that the process of abstraction is pattern-spotting [Friend] |
| 8681 | The big problem for platonists is epistemic: how do we perceive, intuit, know or detect mathematical facts? [Friend] |
| 8712 | Mathematics should be treated as true whenever it is indispensable to our best physical theory [Friend] |
| 8716 | Formalism is unconstrained, so cannot indicate importance, or directions for research [Friend] |
| 8706 | Constructivism rejects too much mathematics [Friend] |
| 8707 | Intuitionists typically retain bivalence but reject the law of excluded middle [Friend] |
| 8704 | Structuralists call a mathematical 'object' simply a 'place in a structure' [Friend] |
| 16435 | Plantinga proposes necessary existent essences as surrogates for the nonexistent things [Plantinga, by Stalnaker] |
| 14655 | The 'identity criteria' of a name are a group of essential and established facts [Plantinga] |
| 14658 | 'Being Socrates' and 'being identical with Socrates' characterise Socrates, so they are among his properties [Plantinga] |
| 14656 | Does Socrates have essential properties, plus a unique essence (or 'haecceity') which entails them? [Plantinga] |
| 14654 | Properties are 'trivially essential' if they are instantiated by every object in every possible world [Plantinga] |
| 14653 | X is essentially P if it is P in every world, or in every X-world, or in the actual world (and not ¬P elsewhere) [Plantinga] |
| 14660 | If a property is ever essential, can it only ever be an essential property? [Plantinga] |
| 14661 | Essences are instantiated, and are what entails a thing's properties and lack of properties [Plantinga] |
| 14657 | Does 'being identical with Socrates' name a property? I can think of no objections to it [Plantinga] |
| 14652 | 'De re' modality is as clear as 'de dicto' modality, because they are logically equivalent [Plantinga] |
| 14659 | We can imagine being beetles or alligators, so it is possible we might have such bodies [Plantinga] |
| 8685 | Studying biology presumes the laws of chemistry, and it could never contradict them [Friend] |
| 8688 | Concepts can be presented extensionally (as objects) or intensionally (as a characterization) [Friend] |