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: "defining identity" and AC
Replies: 16   Last Post: Dec 2, 2013 2:18 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 116
Registered: 6/18/10
Re: "defining identity" and AC
Posted: Nov 20, 2013 8:07 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:55:55 PM UTC-6, fom wrote:
> A short time ago I started a thread which
> Peter Percival described as trying to
> "define identity".

For the general issue of identity, the standard formulation is fairly well-known and is to be found in second order logic. It is given by the two axioms:
(1) for all x: x = x
(2) for all properties P, for all x: x = y & P(x) -> P(y).

Following Carnap, these two axioms can be combined equivalently into an actual *definition*
for all x, y: x = y <-> (for all properties P: P(x) -> P(y))

Notice, by the way, that the arrow goes only one way. Symmetry, nonetheless, is a theorem.

I almost certain that it is also the case that there is no formulation of any theory of identity in first order logic that is equivalent to the combination of (1) and (2).

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.