73 ideas
| 9331 | How do we determine which of the sentences containing a term comprise its definition? [Horwich] |
| 10987 | Three traditional names of rules are 'Simplification', 'Addition' and 'Disjunctive Syllogism' [Read] |
| 11004 | Necessity is provability in S4, and true in all worlds in S5 [Read] |
| 11018 | There are fuzzy predicates (and sets), and fuzzy quantifiers and modifiers [Read] |
| 11011 | Same say there are positive, negative and neuter free logics [Read] |
| 11020 | Realisms like the full Comprehension Principle, that all good concepts determine sets [Read] |
| 10986 | Not all validity is captured in first-order logic [Read] |
| 10972 | The non-emptiness of the domain is characteristic of classical logic [Read] |
| 11024 | Semantics must precede proof in higher-order logics, since they are incomplete [Read] |
| 10985 | We should exclude second-order logic, precisely because it captures arithmetic [Read] |
| 10970 | A theory of logical consequence is a conceptual analysis, and a set of validity techniques [Read] |
| 10984 | Logical consequence isn't just a matter of form; it depends on connections like round-square [Read] |
| 10973 | A theory is logically closed, which means infinite premisses [Read] |
| 11007 | Quantifiers are second-order predicates [Read] |
| 10978 | In second-order logic the higher-order variables range over all the properties of the objects [Read] |
| 10971 | A logical truth is the conclusion of a valid inference with no premisses [Read] |
| 10988 | Any first-order theory of sets is inadequate [Read] |
| 10974 | Compactness is when any consequence of infinite propositions is the consequence of a finite subset [Read] |
| 10975 | Compactness does not deny that an inference can have infinitely many premisses [Read] |
| 10977 | Compactness blocks the proof of 'for every n, A(n)' (as the proof would be infinite) [Read] |
| 10976 | Compactness makes consequence manageable, but restricts expressive power [Read] |
| 11014 | Self-reference paradoxes seem to arise only when falsity is involved [Read] |
| 9912 | There are no such things as numbers [Benacerraf] |
| 9901 | Numbers can't be sets if there is no agreement on which sets they are [Benacerraf] |
| 9151 | Benacerraf says numbers are defined by their natural ordering [Benacerraf, by Fine,K] |
| 13891 | To understand finite cardinals, it is necessary and sufficient to understand progressions [Benacerraf, by Wright,C] |
| 17904 | A set has k members if it one-one corresponds with the numbers less than or equal to k [Benacerraf] |
| 17906 | To explain numbers you must also explain cardinality, the counting of things [Benacerraf] |
| 9898 | We can count intransitively (reciting numbers) without understanding transitive counting of items [Benacerraf] |
| 17903 | Someone can recite numbers but not know how to count things; but not vice versa [Benacerraf] |
| 9897 | The application of a system of numbers is counting and measurement [Benacerraf] |
| 11025 | Infinite cuts and successors seems to suggest an actual infinity there waiting for us [Read] |
| 9900 | For Zermelo 3 belongs to 17, but for Von Neumann it does not [Benacerraf] |
| 9899 | The successor of x is either x and all its members, or just the unit set of x [Benacerraf] |
| 10979 | Although second-order arithmetic is incomplete, it can fully model normal arithmetic [Read] |
| 10980 | Second-order arithmetic covers all properties, ensuring categoricity [Read] |
| 10997 | Von Neumann numbers are helpful, but don't correctly describe numbers [Read] |
| 8697 | Disputes about mathematical objects seem irrelevant, and mathematicians cannot resolve them [Benacerraf, by Friend] |
| 8304 | No particular pair of sets can tell us what 'two' is, just by one-to-one correlation [Benacerraf, by Lowe] |
| 9906 | If ordinal numbers are 'reducible to' some set-theory, then which is which? [Benacerraf] |
| 9907 | If any recursive sequence will explain ordinals, then it seems to be the structure which matters [Benacerraf] |
| 9908 | The job is done by the whole system of numbers, so numbers are not objects [Benacerraf] |
| 9909 | The number 3 defines the role of being third in a progression [Benacerraf] |
| 9911 | Number words no more have referents than do the parts of a ruler [Benacerraf] |
| 8925 | Mathematical objects only have properties relating them to other 'elements' of the same structure [Benacerraf] |
| 9938 | How can numbers be objects if order is their only property? [Benacerraf, by Putnam] |
| 9910 | Number-as-objects works wholesale, but fails utterly object by object [Benacerraf] |
| 9903 | Number words are not predicates, as they function very differently from adjectives [Benacerraf] |
| 9904 | The set-theory paradoxes mean that 17 can't be the class of all classes with 17 members [Benacerraf] |
| 11016 | Would a language without vagueness be usable at all? [Read] |
| 11019 | Supervaluations say there is a cut-off somewhere, but at no particular place [Read] |
| 11012 | A 'supervaluation' gives a proposition consistent truth-value for classical assignments [Read] |
| 11013 | Identities and the Indiscernibility of Identicals don't work with supervaluations [Read] |
| 10995 | A haecceity is a set of individual properties, essential to each thing [Read] |
| 9905 | Identity statements make sense only if there are possible individuating conditions [Benacerraf] |
| 11001 | Equating necessity with truth in every possible world is the S5 conception of necessity [Read] |
| 10992 | The point of conditionals is to show that one will accept modus ponens [Read] |
| 10989 | The standard view of conditionals is that they are truth-functional [Read] |
| 11017 | Some people even claim that conditionals do not express propositions [Read] |
| 10983 | Knowledge of possible worlds is not causal, but is an ontology entailed by semantics [Read] |
| 10982 | How can modal Platonists know the truth of a modal proposition? [Read] |
| 10996 | Actualism is reductionist (to parts of actuality), or moderate realist (accepting real abstractions) [Read] |
| 10981 | A possible world is a determination of the truth-values of all propositions of a domain [Read] |
| 11000 | If worlds are concrete, objects can't be present in more than one, and can only have counterparts [Read] |
| 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] |
| 10998 | The mind abstracts ways things might be, which are nonetheless real [Read] |
| 11005 | Negative existentials with compositionality make the whole sentence meaningless [Read] |
| 10966 | A proposition objectifies what a sentence says, as indicative, with secure references [Read] |