# Re: FOL and Infinity

*From*: sudhir <sudhir_sh@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:10:15 -0700 (PDT)

On Apr 12, 12:39 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 11, 1:27 pm, sudhir <sudhir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:..

This is precisely what I said. Your definition of AxPhi(x) is "For anyHow does the sentence AxPhi(x) imply Phi(1) ,

unless some intuitive semantic content

is read into AxPhi(x)?

No matter what the interpretation of the language, AxPhi(x) implies

Phi(c) for any constant 'c' in the language. That is, for any constant

'c' in the language, there is no model in which AxPhi(x) is true but

Phi(c) is false.

constant c

in the language, AxPhi(x) implies Phi(c)'.

You cannot explain or define AxPhi(x) without using 'For any(all)'

That is where you are into

an interminable regress.

The sentence Phi(1) &Phi(2) implies each of Phi(1) and Phi(2).

The sentence Phi(1) &Phi(2) &Phi(3) implies each of Phi(1) , Phi(20

and Phi(3).

One could go on like this, but there is no sentence of sentential

logic which will imply

Phi(i) for every i.

Precisely such a sentence is introduced in FOL , namely AxPhi(x) .In

a way, AxPhi(x) is

a limit to the sequence

Phi(1), Phi(1)&Phi(2), Phi(1)&Phi(2)&Phi(3), and so on.

The big assumption is that such a limit exists; that such a sentence

(comprising of a finite string of symbols)

can convey that each of the independent sentences Phi(1),Phi(2) and so

on is true. AxPhi(x) is a shorthand for

an infinite amount of information ; it is the first idol in the Temple

of Infinity.

..

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: FOL and Infinity***From:*MoeBlee

**References**:**FOL and Infinity***From:*sudhir

**Re: FOL and Infinity***From:*MoeBlee

**Re: FOL and Infinity***From:*sudhir

**Re: FOL and Infinity***From:*MoeBlee

- Prev by Date:
**Re: FOL and Infinity** - Next by Date:
**Re: FOL and Infinity** - Previous by thread:
**Re: FOL and Infinity** - Next by thread:
**Re: FOL and Infinity** - Index(es):