Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: A logically motivated theory
Replies: 15   Last Post: May 21, 2013 8:22 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Zaljohar@gmail.com

Posts: 2,665
Registered: 6/29/07
Re: A logically motivated theory
Posted: May 19, 2013 12:19 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On May 19, 1:47 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 5/18/2013 2:52 PM, Zuhair wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On May 18, 10:38 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/18/2013 2:21 PM, Zuhair wrote:
>
> >>> On May 18, 8:58 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/18/2013 10:40 AM, Zuhair wrote:
>
> >>>>> In this theory Sets are nothing but object extensions of some
> >>>>> predicate. This theory propose that for every first order predicate
> >>>>> there is an object extending it defined after some extensional
> >>>>> relation.

>
> >>>>> This goes in the following manner:
>
> >>>>> Define: E is extensional iff for all x,y: (for all z. z E x iff z E y)
> >>>>> -> x=y

>
> >>>>> where E is a primitive binary relation symbol.
>
> >>>> So,
>
> >>>> <X,E>
>
> >>>> is a model of the axiom of extensionality.
>
> >>>>> Now sets are defined as
>
> >>>>> x is a set iff Exist E,P: E is extensional & for all y. y E x <-> P(y)
>
> >>>> So,
>
> >>>> xEX <-> ...
>
> >>>> where
>
> >>>> ... is a statement quantifying over relations and predicates.
>
> >>> No ... is a statement quantifying over objects.
>
> >> How so?  The formula seems to have an
> >> existential quantifier applying to a
> >> relation and a subformula with the
> >> quantified 'E' as a free variable:

>
> >> 'E is extensional'
>
> >> Using 'R' for "Relation", I read
>
> >> Ax(Set(x) <-> EREP(extensional(R) /\ Ay(yRx <-> P(y))))
>
> > I meant that P must be first order. There is no General so to say
> > membership relation E, there are separate different membership
> > relations all of which are 'primitive' relations.

>
> > Of course one might contemplate something like the following:
>
> > Define(E): x E X iff Exist R Exist P( extensional(R) /\ Ay(yRX <-
> >> P(y) /\ P(x) )
>
> > This E relation would be something like a 'general' membership
> > relation, but this is not acceptable here, because it is 'defined'
> > membership relation and not 'primitive'. When I'm speaking about
> > membership relations in the axioms I'm speaking about ones represented
> > by 'primitive' symbols and not definable ones.

>
> > Zuhair
>
> I will refrain from making a long posting based on
> my earlier mistaken impressions.
>
> However, your remarks here suggest that you should take
> a look at Quine's "New Foundations" and the interpretation
> of stratified formulas.  If you have Quine's book "Set Theory
> and Its Logic" available to you, a couple of hours reading the
> appropriate chapters and flipping forward to the definitions
> in earlier chapters should give you some sense of the matter
> as he saw it.
>
> I believe it is Thomas Forster who is making his book
> available online concerning NF, if you should become more
> interested in Quine's theory.


Yes I'm familiar with NF, actually I managed to further simplify it. I
coined the Acyclicity criterion, after which we can forsake
stratification altogether. See the joint article of Bowler, Randall
Holmes and myself on that subject, you can find it on Randal Holmes
home page and also on my website. Actually see:
http://math.boisestate.edu/~holmes/acyclic_abstract_final_revision.pdf

Anyhow here I'm trying to achieve something else, that of seeing that
PA can be interpreted in a LOGICAL theory. I view all the extensional
primitive relations in this theory as logical since all what they
function is to extend predicates. If we regard the second order
quantifier as logical, then that's it the major bulk of traditional
mathematics belongs to logic. I'm not sure if we can get without the
second order quantifier.

Anyhow I'm not sure of the remarks I've presented here, I might be
well mistaken, but matters look to go along that side. I'm just
conjecturing here.

DIVIDE and CONCUR

Zuhair



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.