89 ideas
| 13838 | A decent modern definition should always imply a semantics [Hacking] |
| 13634 | Satisfaction is 'truth in a model', which is a model of 'truth' [Shapiro] |
| 13643 | Aristotelian logic is complete [Shapiro] |
| 13833 | 'Thinning' ('dilution') is the key difference between deduction (which allows it) and induction [Hacking] |
| 13834 | Gentzen's Cut Rule (or transitivity of deduction) is 'If A |- B and B |- C, then A |- C' [Hacking] |
| 13835 | Only Cut reduces complexity, so logic is constructive without it, and it can be dispensed with [Hacking] |
| 13651 | A set is 'transitive' if contains every member of each of its members [Shapiro] |
| 13647 | Choice is essential for proving downward Löwenheim-Skolem [Shapiro] |
| 13631 | Are sets part of logic, or part of mathematics? [Shapiro] |
| 13654 | It is central to the iterative conception that membership is well-founded, with no infinite descending chains [Shapiro] |
| 13640 | Russell's paradox shows that there are classes which are not iterative sets [Shapiro] |
| 13666 | Iterative sets are not Boolean; the complement of an iterative set is not an iterative sets [Shapiro] |
| 13653 | 'Well-ordering' of a set is an irreflexive, transitive, and binary relation with a least element [Shapiro] |
| 13627 | There is no 'correct' logic for natural languages [Shapiro] |
| 13642 | Logic is the ideal for learning new propositions on the basis of others [Shapiro] |
| 13668 | Bernays (1918) formulated and proved the completeness of propositional logic [Shapiro] |
| 13669 | Can one develop set theory first, then derive numbers, or are numbers more basic? [Shapiro] |
| 13667 | Skolem and Gödel championed first-order, and Zermelo, Hilbert, and Bernays championed higher-order [Shapiro] |
| 13845 | The various logics are abstractions made from terms like 'if...then' in English [Hacking] |
| 13840 | First-order logic is the strongest complete compact theory with Löwenheim-Skolem [Hacking] |
| 13844 | A limitation of first-order logic is that it cannot handle branching quantifiers [Hacking] |
| 13662 | First-order logic was an afterthought in the development of modern logic [Shapiro] |
| 13624 | The 'triumph' of first-order logic may be related to logicism and the Hilbert programme, which failed [Shapiro] |
| 13660 | Maybe compactness, semantic effectiveness, and the Löwenheim-Skolem properties are desirable [Shapiro] |
| 13673 | The notion of finitude is actually built into first-order languages [Shapiro] |
| 13842 | Second-order completeness seems to need intensional entities and possible worlds [Hacking] |
| 15944 | Second-order logic is better than set theory, since it only adds relations and operations, and nothing else [Shapiro, by Lavine] |
| 13629 | Broad standard semantics, or Henkin semantics with a subclass, or many-sorted first-order semantics? [Shapiro] |
| 13650 | Henkin semantics has separate variables ranging over the relations and over the functions [Shapiro] |
| 13645 | In standard semantics for second-order logic, a single domain fixes the ranges for the variables [Shapiro] |
| 13649 | Completeness, Compactness and Löwenheim-Skolem fail in second-order standard semantics [Shapiro] |
| 13626 | Semantic consequence is ineffective in second-order logic [Shapiro] |
| 13637 | If a logic is incomplete, its semantic consequence relation is not effective [Shapiro] |
| 13632 | Finding the logical form of a sentence is difficult, and there are no criteria of correctness [Shapiro] |
| 13837 | With a pure notion of truth and consequence, the meanings of connectives are fixed syntactically [Hacking] |
| 13839 | Perhaps variables could be dispensed with, by arrows joining places in the scope of quantifiers [Hacking] |
| 13674 | We might reduce ontology by using truth of sentences and terms, instead of using objects satisfying models [Shapiro] |
| 13633 | 'Satisfaction' is a function from models, assignments, and formulas to {true,false} [Shapiro] |
| 13644 | Semantics for models uses set-theory [Shapiro] |
| 13636 | An axiomatization is 'categorical' if its models are isomorphic, so there is really only one interpretation [Shapiro] |
| 13670 | Categoricity can't be reached in a first-order language [Shapiro] |
| 13658 | Downward Löwenheim-Skolem: each satisfiable countable set always has countable models [Shapiro] |
| 13659 | Upward Löwenheim-Skolem: each infinite model has infinite models of all sizes [Shapiro] |
| 13843 | If it is a logic, the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem holds for it [Hacking] |
| 13648 | The Löwenheim-Skolem theorems show an explosion of infinite models, so 1st-order is useless for infinity [Shapiro] |
| 13675 | Substitutional semantics only has countably many terms, so Upward Löwenheim-Skolem trivially fails [Shapiro] |
| 13635 | 'Weakly sound' if every theorem is a logical truth; 'sound' if every deduction is a semantic consequence [Shapiro] |
| 13628 | We can live well without completeness in logic [Shapiro] |
| 13630 | Non-compactness is a strength of second-order logic, enabling characterisation of infinite structures [Shapiro] |
| 13646 | Compactness is derived from soundness and completeness [Shapiro] |
| 13661 | A language is 'semantically effective' if its logical truths are recursively enumerable [Shapiro] |
| 13641 | Complex numbers can be defined as reals, which are defined as rationals, then integers, then naturals [Shapiro] |
| 13676 | Only higher-order languages can specify that 0,1,2,... are all the natural numbers that there are [Shapiro] |
| 13677 | Natural numbers are the finite ordinals, and integers are equivalence classes of pairs of finite ordinals [Shapiro] |
| 13652 | The 'continuum' is the cardinality of the powerset of a denumerably infinite set [Shapiro] |
| 13657 | First-order arithmetic can't even represent basic number theory [Shapiro] |
| 13656 | Some sets of natural numbers are definable in set-theory but not in arithmetic [Shapiro] |
| 13664 | Logicism is distinctive in seeking a universal language, and denying that logic is a series of abstractions [Shapiro] |
| 13625 | Mathematics and logic have no border, and logic must involve mathematics and its ontology [Shapiro] |
| 13663 | Some reject formal properties if they are not defined, or defined impredicatively [Shapiro] |
| 13638 | Properties are often seen as intensional; equiangular and equilateral are different, despite identity of objects [Shapiro] |
| 17405 | If a theory can be fudged, so can observations [Scerri] |
| 17397 | The periodic system is the big counterexample to Kuhn's theory of revolutionary science [Scerri] |
| 17393 | Scientists eventually seek underlying explanations for every pattern [Scerri] |
| 17403 | The periodic table suggests accommodation to facts rates above prediction [Scerri] |
| 17394 | Natural kinds are what are differentiated by nature, and not just by us [Scerri] |
| 17421 | If elements are natural kinds, might the groups of the periodic table also be natural kinds? [Scerri] |
| 17396 | The colour of gold is best explained by relativistic effects due to fast-moving inner-shell electrons [Scerri] |
| 17420 | The stability of nuclei can be estimated through their binding energy [Scerri] |
| 17411 | If all elements are multiples of one (of hydrogen), that suggests once again that matter is unified [Scerri] |
| 17407 | The electron is the main source of chemical properties [Scerri] |
| 17415 | A big chemistry idea is that covalent bonds are shared electrons, not transfer of electrons [Scerri] |
| 17392 | How can poisonous elements survive in the nutritious compound they compose? [Scerri] |
| 17391 | Periodicity and bonding are the two big ideas in chemistry [Scerri] |
| 17404 | Chemistry does not work from general principles, but by careful induction from large amounts of data [Scerri] |
| 17409 | Does radioactivity show that only physics can explain chemistry? [Scerri] |
| 17418 | It is now thought that all the elements have literally evolved from hydrogen [Scerri] |
| 17398 | 19th C views said elements survived abstractly in compounds, but also as 'material ingredients' [Scerri] |
| 17406 | Moseley, using X-rays, showed that atomic number ordered better than atomic weight [Scerri] |
| 17408 | Some suggested basing the new periodic table on isotopes, not elements [Scerri] |
| 17412 | Elements are placed in the table by the number of positive charges - the atomic number [Scerri] |
| 17413 | Elements in the table are grouped by having the same number of outer-shell electrons [Scerri] |
| 17416 | Orthodoxy says the periodic table is explained by quantum mechanics [Scerri] |
| 17414 | Pauli explained the electron shells, but not the lengths of the periods in the table [Scerri] |
| 17395 | Elements were ordered by equivalent weight; later by atomic weight; finally by atomic number [Scerri] |
| 17422 | The best classification needs the deepest and most general principles of the atoms [Scerri] |
| 17417 | To explain the table, quantum mechanics still needs to explain order of shell filling [Scerri] |
| 17419 | Since 99.96% of the universe is hydrogen and helium, the periodic table hardly matters [Scerri] |
| 17410 | Moseley showed the elements progress in units, and thereby clearly identified the gaps [Scerri] |