green numbers give full details.
|
back to list of philosophers
|
expand these ideas
Ideas of George Boolos, by Text
[American, 1940 - 1996, Professor of Philosophy at MIT.]
|
1971
|
The iterative conception of Set
|
|
|
p.59
|
18192
|
Do the Replacement Axioms exceed the iterative conception of sets? [Maddy]
|
|
1975
|
On Second-Order Logic
|
|
|
p.152
|
14249
|
Boolos reinterprets second-order logic as plural logic [Oliver/Smiley]
|
|
|
p.245
|
13841
|
Why should compactness be definitive of logic? [Hacking]
|
|
p.44
|
p.516
|
10829
|
A sentence can't be a truth of logic if it asserts the existence of certain sets
|
|
p.45
|
p.518
|
10830
|
Second-order logic metatheory is set-theoretic, and second-order validity has set-theoretic problems
|
|
p.46
|
p.519
|
10832
|
'∀x x=x' only means 'everything is identical to itself' if the range of 'everything' is fixed
|
|
p.48
|
p.521
|
10833
|
Many concepts can only be expressed by second-order logic
|
|
p.52
|
p.525
|
10834
|
Weak completeness: if it is valid, it is provable. Strong: it is provable from a set of sentences
|
|
1984
|
To be is to be the value of a variable..
|
|
|
p.
|
7785
|
The use of plurals doesn't commit us to sets; there do not exist individuals and collections
|
|
|
p.105
|
10225
|
Monadic second-order logic might be understood in terms of plural quantifiers [Shapiro]
|
|
|
p.201
|
13671
|
Second-order quantifiers are just like plural quantifiers in ordinary language, with no extra ontology [Shapiro]
|
|
|
p.234
|
10267
|
We should understand second-order existential quantifiers as plural quantifiers [Shapiro]
|
|
|
p.359
|
7806
|
Boolos invented plural quantification [Benardete,JA]
|
|
Intro
|
p.71
|
10736
|
Boolos showed how plural quantifiers can interpret monadic second-order logic [Linnebo]
|
|
§1
|
p.74
|
10780
|
Any sentence of monadic second-order logic can be translated into plural first-order logic [Linnebo]
|
|
p.54
|
p.54
|
10697
|
Identity is clearly a logical concept, and greatly enhances predicate calculus
|
|
p.66
|
p.66
|
10698
|
Plural forms have no more ontological commitment than to first-order objects
|
|
p.72
|
p.72
|
10699
|
Does a bowl of Cheerios contain all its sets and subsets?
|
|
p.72
|
p.72
|
10700
|
First- and second-order quantifiers are two ways of referring to the same things
|
|
|
p.227
|
13547
|
Limitation of Size is weak (Fs only collect is something the same size does) or strong (fewer Fs than objects) [Potter]
|
|
1997
|
Must We Believe in Set Theory?
|
|
p.121
|
p.121
|
10482
|
The logic of ZF is classical first-order predicate logic with identity
|
|
p.122
|
p.122
|
10483
|
Mathematics and science do not require very high orders of infinity
|
|
p.126
|
p.126
|
10484
|
The iterative conception says sets are formed at stages; some are 'earlier', and must be formed first
|
|
p.127
|
p.127
|
10485
|
Naïve sets are inconsistent: there is no set for things that do not belong to themselves
|
|
p.128
|
p.128
|
10488
|
It is lunacy to think we only see ink-marks, and not word-types
|
|
p.128
|
p.128
|
10487
|
I am a fan of abstract objects, and confident of their existence
|
|
p.129
|
p.129
|
10489
|
We deal with abstract objects all the time: software, poems, mistakes, triangles..
|
|
p.129
|
p.129
|
10491
|
Infinite natural numbers is as obvious as infinite sentences in English
|
|
p.129
|
p.129
|
10490
|
Mathematics isn't surprising, given that we experience many objects as abstract
|
|
p.130
|
p.130
|
10492
|
A few axioms of set theory 'force themselves on us', but most of them don't
|
|
1997
|
Is Hume's Principle analytic?
|
|
|
p.75
|
8693
|
An 'abstraction principle' says two things are identical if they are 'equivalent' in some respect
|