80 ideas
| 13985 | A true proposition seems true of one fact, but a false proposition seems true of nothing at all. [Ryle] |
| 13984 | Two maps might correspond to one another, but they are only 'true' of the country they show [Ryle] |
| 9535 | 'Contradictory' propositions always differ in truth-value [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] |
| 9514 | If A and B are 'interderivable' from one another we may write A -||- B [Lemmon] |
| 9511 | We write the conditional 'if P (antecedent) then Q (consequent)' as P→Q [Lemmon] |
| 9512 | We write the 'negation' of P (not-P) as ¬ [Lemmon] |
| 9510 | That proposition that either P or Q is their 'disjunction', written P∨Q [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] |
| 9516 | A 'well-formed formula' follows the rules for variables, ¬, →, ∧, ∨, and ↔ [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] |
| 9534 | Two propositions are 'equivalent' if they mirror one another's truth-value [Lemmon] |
| 9532 | 'Subcontrary' propositions are never both false, so that A∨B is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| 9531 | 'Contrary' propositions are never both true, so that ¬(A∧B) is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| 9517 | The 'scope' of a connective is the connective, the linked formulae, and the brackets [Lemmon] |
| 9528 | A wff is a 'tautology' if all assignments to variables result in the value T [Lemmon] |
| 9530 | A wff is 'contingent' if produces at least one T and at least one F [Lemmon] |
| 9518 | A 'theorem' is the conclusion of a provable sequent with zero assumptions [Lemmon] |
| 9533 | A 'implies' B if B is true whenever A is true (so that A→B is tautologous) [Lemmon] |
| 9396 | DN: Given A, we may derive ¬¬A [Lemmon] |
| 9399 | ∧E: Given A∧B, we may derive either A or B separately [Lemmon] |
| 9401 | ∨E: Derive C from A∨B, if C can be derived both from A and from B [Lemmon] |
| 9395 | MTT: Given ¬B and A→B, we derive ¬A [Lemmon] |
| 9398 | ∧I: Given A and B, we may derive A∧B [Lemmon] |
| 9394 | MPP: Given A and A→B, we may derive B [Lemmon] |
| 9393 | A: we may assume any proposition at any stage [Lemmon] |
| 9400 | ∨I: Given either A or B separately, we may derive A∨B [Lemmon] |
| 9402 | RAA: If assuming A will prove B∧¬B, then derive ¬A [Lemmon] |
| 9397 | CP: Given a proof of B from A as assumption, we may derive A→B [Lemmon] |
| 9522 | 'Modus ponendo tollens' (MPT) says P, ¬(P ∧ Q) |- ¬Q [Lemmon] |
| 9526 | We can change conjunctions into negated conditionals with P→Q -||- ¬(P → ¬Q) [Lemmon] |
| 9527 | The Distributive Laws can rearrange a pair of conjunctions or disjunctions [Lemmon] |
| 9523 | De Morgan's Laws make negated conjunctions/disjunctions into non-negated disjunctions/conjunctions [Lemmon] |
| 9524 | We can change conditionals into disjunctions with P→Q -||- ¬P ∨ Q [Lemmon] |
| 9525 | We can change conditionals into negated conjunctions with P→Q -||- ¬(P ∧ ¬Q) [Lemmon] |
| 9521 | 'Modus tollendo ponens' (MTP) says ¬P, P ∨ Q |- 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] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 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] |
| 13979 | Logic studies consequence, compatibility, contradiction, corroboration, necessitation, grounding.... [Ryle] |
| 9520 | The paradoxes of material implication are P |- Q → P, and ¬P |- P → Q [Lemmon] |
| 17518 | Counting 'coin in this box' may have coin as the unit, with 'in this box' merely as the scope [Ayers] |
| 17516 | If counting needs a sortal, what of things which fall under two sortals? [Ayers] |
| 17520 | Events do not have natural boundaries, and we have to set them [Ayers] |
| 13988 | Many sentences do not state facts, but there are no facts which could not be stated [Ryle] |
| 17519 | To express borderline cases of objects, you need the concept of an 'object' [Ayers] |
| 17510 | Speakers need the very general category of a thing, if they are to think about it [Ayers] |
| 17522 | We use sortals to classify physical objects by the nature and origin of their unity [Ayers] |
| 17515 | Seeing caterpillar and moth as the same needs continuity, not identity of sortal concepts [Ayers] |
| 17511 | Recognising continuity is separate from sortals, and must precede their use [Ayers] |
| 17517 | Could the same matter have more than one form or principle of unity? [Ayers] |
| 17513 | If there are two objects, then 'that marble, man-shaped object' is ambiguous [Ayers] |
| 17523 | Sortals basically apply to individuals [Ayers] |
| 17521 | You can't have the concept of a 'stage' if you lack the concept of an object [Ayers] |
| 17514 | Temporal 'parts' cannot be separated or rearranged [Ayers] |
| 17509 | Some say a 'covering concept' completes identity; others place the concept in the reference [Ayers] |
| 17512 | If diachronic identities need covering concepts, why not synchronic identities too? [Ayers] |
| 13983 | Representation assumes you know the ideas, and the reality, and the relation between the two [Ryle] |
| 13980 | If you like judgments and reject propositions, what are the relata of incoherence in a judgment? [Ryle] |
| 13978 | Husserl and Meinong wanted objective Meanings and Propositions, as subject-matter for Logic [Ryle] |
| 13977 | When I utter a sentence, listeners grasp both my meaning and my state of mind [Ryle] |
| 13976 | 'Propositions' name what is thought, because 'thoughts' and 'judgments' are too ambiguous [Ryle] |
| 13981 | Several people can believe one thing, or make the same mistake, or share one delusion [Ryle] |
| 13987 | We may think in French, but we don't know or believe in French [Ryle] |
| 13989 | There are no propositions; they are just sentences, used for thinking, which link to facts in a certain way [Ryle] |
| 13982 | If we accept true propositions, it is hard to reject false ones, and even nonsensical ones [Ryle] |