The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Extensional Logic
Replies: 2   Last Post: May 23, 2013 2:24 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 2,665
Registered: 6/29/07
Re: Extensional Logic
Posted: May 23, 2013 2:24 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On May 22, 10:16 pm, Zuhair <> wrote:
> I think it is plausible to study extensions of n_th order predicates:
> A zero order predicate is an "object"
> A first order predicate is a predicate that only hold of objects.
> A second order predicate is a predicate that hold of zero or first
> order predicates.
> In general and n_th order predicate is a predicate that holds of 0 or
> 1st or ... or (n-1)_th order predicates.
> Now lets add a monadic symbol e to second order logic, and stipulate
> the following rule:
> if P is an n_th order predicate then eP is a term.
> eP is read as: "extension of P"
> And axiomatize the following:
> If P is an n_th order predicate and Q is an m_th order predicate then:
> eP=eQ iff (for all x. P(x) <-> Q(x))
> Of course one can define a general membership relation in the
> following manner:
> x E y iff Exist G. G(x) & eG=y
> However it is clear that E is not an n_th predicate, so eE is not a
> term! thus avoiding Russell's paradox!

No this is wrong, we can easily define a membership relation E*
obtained from E by restricting its arguments to objects, rendering it
a first order predicate! and clearly e(~E*) will be paradoxical.

To remedy that, predicates must be typed after formulas defining them
which in turn must use typed predicates only. This is recursive
definitional typing of predicates. I'll outline that in a separate

> This way can enable us to define every natural number
> 0 = eP
> 1 = eP*
> 2 = eP**
> were P, P*, P** are defined as:
> For all x. P(x) iff ~x=x
> For all x. P*(x) iff x=eP
> For all x. P**(x) iff x=eP*
> Successor relation of x can be defined as {x} after relation E.
> Should we have infinitely long formulas then definitely we can define
> Number and thus prove PA in logic.
> Anyhow I'm not really sure of this method yet. But it does show that
> some mathematics does follow from pure logical theories like the
> extensional logic defined above.
> Zuhair

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.