20 ideas
| 10838 | To explain a concept, we need its purpose, not just its rules of usage [Dummett] |
| 9331 | How do we determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? [Horwich] |
| 10837 | It is part of the concept of truth that we aim at making true statements [Dummett] |
| 10840 | We must be able to specify truths in a precise language, like winning moves in a game [Dummett] |
| 19171 | Tarski's truth is like rules for winning games, without saying what 'winning' means [Dummett, by Davidson] |
| 13201 | ∈ says the whole set is in the other; ⊆ says the members of the subset are in the other [Enderton] |
| 13206 | A 'linear or total ordering' must be transitive and satisfy trichotomy [Enderton] |
| 13204 | The 'ordered pair' <x,y> is defined to be {{x}, {x,y}} [Enderton] |
| 13200 | Note that {Φ} =/= Φ, because Φ ∈ {Φ} but Φ ∉ Φ [Enderton] |
| 13199 | The empty set may look pointless, but many sets can be constructed from it [Enderton] |
| 13203 | The singleton is defined using the pairing axiom (as {x,x}) [Enderton] |
| 13202 | Fraenkel added Replacement, to give a theory of ordinal numbers [Enderton] |
| 13205 | We can only define functions if Choice tells us which items are involved [Enderton] |
| 9333 | A priori belief is not necessarily a priori justification, or a priori knowledge [Horwich] |
| 9342 | Understanding needs a priori commitment [Horwich] |
| 9332 | Meaning is generated by a priori commitment to truth, not the other way around [Horwich] |
| 9341 | Meanings and concepts cannot give a priori knowledge, because they may be unacceptable [Horwich] |
| 9334 | If we stipulate the meaning of 'number' to make Hume's Principle true, we first need Hume's Principle [Horwich] |
| 9339 | A priori knowledge (e.g. classical logic) may derive from the innate structure of our minds [Horwich] |
| 10839 | You can't infer a dog's abstract concepts from its behaviour [Dummett] |