FOM: second-order logic lives...
Vedasystem@aol.com
Vedasystem at aol.com
Wed Mar 24 07:28:07 EST 1999
In a message dated 3/23/99 8:57:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
holmes at catseye.idbsu.edu writes:
<<In any case, no language has semantics in the absence
of a given interpretation or interpretations>>
It seems to be a standard assumption of classical mathematical logic, but
I would like to cite the following statement of Robert Kowalski:
"The assumption ... that there exists a reality composed of individuals,
functions, and relations, separate from the syntax of language, is both
unnecessary and unhelpful". (R. Kowalski. Logic without model theory. In
"What is a logical system?", ed. by D.M. Gabbay, 1994, p.38).
Holmes writes:
<>
First-order logic has proved to be fruitful because it has helped
to solve some important long - standing mathematical problems.
What are some significant mathematical problems solved with
the help of "second-order-logic"?
Holmes writes:
<< How do we see that the definition captures our pre-formal
notion of what a natural number is? >>
Holmes tacitly assumes that everybody has the same
"pre-formal notion of what a natural number is".
But it is not the case!. Sazonov, for example, may have
a different such notion than Holmes has.
Or Holmes may have a different notion of set that Zermelo had.
A great benefit of formalization is that it allows to write down
in a formal language a formal analog of a pre-formal notion .
There are may be several such analogs.
A lot of debates go on because different people mean
under the same name a different notion.
But the formal language used must be really formal
(it means that actually it must be a formal logical system).
The first-order ZFC is a formal language in that sense.
Is "second order logic" a formal language in that sense?
Victor Makarov
EMD
Brooklyn, New York
More information about the FOM
mailing list