66 ideas
| 9641 | Definitions should be replaceable by primitives, and should not be creative [Brown,JR] |
| 13252 | Some truths have true negations [Beall/Restall] |
| 13247 | A truthmaker is an object which entails a sentence [Beall/Restall] |
| 13249 | (∀x)(A v B) |- (∀x)A v (∃x)B) is valid in classical logic but invalid intuitionistically [Beall/Restall] |
| 13243 | Excluded middle must be true for some situation, not for all situations [Beall/Restall] |
| 13242 | It's 'relevantly' valid if all those situations make it true [Beall/Restall] |
| 13246 | Relevant logic does not abandon classical logic [Beall/Restall] |
| 13245 | Relevant consequence says invalidity is the conclusion not being 'in' the premises [Beall/Restall] |
| 13254 | A doesn't imply A - that would be circular [Beall/Restall] |
| 13255 | Relevant logic may reject transitivity [Beall/Restall] |
| 13250 | Free logic terms aren't existential; classical is non-empty, with referring names [Beall/Restall] |
| 9634 | Set theory says that natural numbers are an actual infinity (to accommodate their powerset) [Brown,JR] |
| 9613 | Naïve set theory assumed that there is a set for every condition [Brown,JR] |
| 9615 | Nowadays conditions are only defined on existing sets [Brown,JR] |
| 9617 | The 'iterative' view says sets start with the empty set and build up [Brown,JR] |
| 9642 | A flock of birds is not a set, because a set cannot go anywhere [Brown,JR] |
| 13235 | Logic studies consequence; logical truths are consequences of everything, or nothing [Beall/Restall] |
| 13238 | Syllogisms are only logic when they use variables, and not concrete terms [Beall/Restall] |
| 13234 | The view of logic as knowing a body of truths looks out-of-date [Beall/Restall] |
| 13232 | Logic studies arguments, not formal languages; this involves interpretations [Beall/Restall] |
| 13241 | The model theory of classical predicate logic is mathematics [Beall/Restall] |
| 13253 | There are several different consequence relations [Beall/Restall] |
| 13240 | A sentence follows from others if they always model it [Beall/Restall] |
| 9605 | If a proposition is false, then its negation is true [Brown,JR] |
| 10001 | An adjective contributes semantically to a noun phrase [Hofweber] |
| 10007 | Quantifiers for domains and for inference come apart if there are no entities [Hofweber] |
| 13236 | Logical truth is much more important if mathematics rests on it, as logicism claims [Beall/Restall] |
| 9649 | Axioms are either self-evident, or stipulations, or fallible attempts [Brown,JR] |
| 9638 | Berry's Paradox finds a contradiction in the naming of huge numbers [Brown,JR] |
| 13237 | Preface Paradox affirms and denies the conjunction of propositions in the book [Beall/Restall] |
| 9604 | Mathematics is the only place where we are sure we are right [Brown,JR] |
| 9622 | 'There are two apples' can be expressed logically, with no mention of numbers [Brown,JR] |
| 10002 | '2 + 2 = 4' can be read as either singular or plural [Hofweber] |
| 9998 | What is the relation of number words as singular-terms, adjectives/determiners, and symbols? [Hofweber] |
| 9648 | π is a 'transcendental' number, because it is not the solution of an equation [Brown,JR] |
| 9621 | Mathematics represents the world through structurally similar models. [Brown,JR] |
| 9646 | There is no limit to how many ways something can be proved in mathematics [Brown,JR] |
| 9647 | Computers played an essential role in proving the four-colour theorem of maps [Brown,JR] |
| 9643 | Set theory may represent all of mathematics, without actually being mathematics [Brown,JR] |
| 9644 | When graphs are defined set-theoretically, that won't cover unlabelled graphs [Brown,JR] |
| 9625 | To see a structure in something, we must already have the idea of the structure [Brown,JR] |
| 9628 | Sets seem basic to mathematics, but they don't suit structuralism [Brown,JR] |
| 9606 | The irrationality of root-2 was achieved by intellect, not experience [Brown,JR] |
| 10003 | Why is arithmetic hard to learn, but then becomes easy? [Hofweber] |
| 10008 | Arithmetic is not about a domain of entities, as the quantifiers are purely inferential [Hofweber] |
| 9612 | There is an infinity of mathematical objects, so they can't be physical [Brown,JR] |
| 9610 | Numbers are not abstracted from particulars, because each number is a particular [Brown,JR] |
| 10005 | Arithmetic doesn’t simply depend on objects, since it is true of fictional objects [Hofweber] |
| 9620 | Empiricists base numbers on objects, Platonists base them on properties [Brown,JR] |
| 10000 | We might eliminate adjectival numbers by analysing them into blocks of quantifiers [Hofweber] |
| 10006 | First-order logic captures the inferential relations of numbers, but not the semantics [Hofweber] |
| 9629 | For nomalists there are no numbers, only numerals [Brown,JR] |
| 9639 | Does some mathematics depend entirely on notation? [Brown,JR] |
| 9630 | The most brilliant formalist was Hilbert [Brown,JR] |
| 9608 | There are no constructions for many highly desirable results in mathematics [Brown,JR] |
| 9645 | Constructivists say p has no value, if the value depends on Goldbach's Conjecture [Brown,JR] |
| 9619 | David's 'Napoleon' is about something concrete and something abstract [Brown,JR] |
| 13244 | Relevant necessity is always true for some situation (not all situations) [Beall/Restall] |
| 10004 | Our minds are at their best when reasoning about objects [Hofweber] |
| 13239 | Judgement is always predicating a property of a subject [Beall/Restall] |
| 9611 | 'Abstract' nowadays means outside space and time, not concrete, not physical [Brown,JR] |
| 9609 | The older sense of 'abstract' is where 'redness' or 'group' is abstracted from particulars [Brown,JR] |
| 9640 | A term can have not only a sense and a reference, but also a 'computational role' [Brown,JR] |
| 13248 | We can rest truth-conditions on situations, rather than on possible worlds [Beall/Restall] |
| 13233 | Propositions commit to content, and not to any way of spelling it out [Beall/Restall] |
| 9635 | Given atomism at one end, and a finite universe at the other, there are no physical infinities [Brown,JR] |