Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Aug 2005 04:44:41 GMT
On 28 Aug 2005 20:30:44 -0700, futurist <adamgolding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>> What thesis? |- doesn't nest.
>
> ok, i guess that's the part i don't understand--why doesn't |- nest
> when -> can??
Because, unlike ->, |- is not a boolean logical connective. Rather,
"S |- Q" is an abbreviation in the *metalanguage* that we are using to
talk *about* the logical system in question for "There is a proof in the
system of Q from S", where Q is a sentence of the language of the system
and S is a set of sentences of the language. In the case where S is
only a singleton {P}, it is conventional to write "P |- Q" instead of
"{P} |- Q".
That said, there is in fact a *sense* in which |- can nest in certain
systems that are powerful enough to represent their own proof relations.
But that's another discussion.
.
- References:
- reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: futurist
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: William Elliot
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: adamgolding
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: William Elliot
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- From: futurist
- reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- Prev by Date: .999... = 1
- Next by Date: Vague question on mixed quantifiers.
- Previous by thread: Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- Next by thread: Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|