Re: In the empty domain:
From: Jim Spriggs (jim.sprigs_at_ANTISPAMbtinternet.com.invalid)
Date: 02/21/05
- Next message: JXStern: "Cerberus and Quine"
- Previous message: Mitch Harris: "Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)"
- In reply to: Paul Holbach: "Re: In the empty domain:"
- Next in thread: Paul Holbach: "Re: In the empty domain:"
- Reply: Paul Holbach: "Re: In the empty domain:"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:55:40 +0000 (UTC)
Paul Holbach wrote:
>
> > Jim Spriggs wrote:
> > > Owen wrote:
>
> > > Ax(Fx) -> Ex(Fx) is tautologous, for all domains,
> > > including the empty
> > > domain.
>
> > If you're interested in logic in which the domain
> > of quantification may
> > be empty, you should consider free logic.
>
> Even in free logic all formulas of the type "Ex(...x....)" are false
> due to there being nothing in the empty domain by definition.
>
> Furthermore:
> "The label 'free logic' is shorthand for 'logic free of existence
> assumptions with respect to its general and singular terms, but whose
> quantifiers are interpreted exactly as in classical first order
> predicate logic'."
> [Lambert, Karel (1997). /Free Logics/. Sankt Augustin: Academia. (p.
> 35)]
Absolutely! My point was merely that, since FOL doesn't consider empty
domains, Owen might like to look at logics which do. Will those that do
serve his purpose? I know not.
- Next message: JXStern: "Cerberus and Quine"
- Previous message: Mitch Harris: "Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)"
- In reply to: Paul Holbach: "Re: In the empty domain:"
- Next in thread: Paul Holbach: "Re: In the empty domain:"
- Reply: Paul Holbach: "Re: In the empty domain:"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|