FOM: FOL & SOL - extensional vs intensional
Martin Davis
martin at eipye.com
Sun Sep 10 15:38:04 EDT 2000
I believe most issues Harvey and I were discussing/debating are pretty much
resolved, but one contention remains unresolved.
I introduced the three sentences:
(Ax,y,z)[S(x,y,z) <=> S(y,x,z)] (*)
and
(AS)(Ax,y,z)[S(x,y,z) <=> S(y,x,z)], (ES)(Ax,y,z)[S(x,y,z) <=>
S(y,x,z)]
the first being of FOL and the other two of SOL. I said that the first
expresses definite proposition only when an interpretation is specified
while the second two express propositions outright.
Harvey insists that the kind of propositions one can properly associate
with a sentence phi of FOL or SOL are propositions like "phi is valid" and
"phi is satisfiable". The semantics he outlined is extensional. Sets and
their members, etc. And he insists that that is the only legitimate way to
talk about these matters. Now of course this extensional semantics is
crucial for precision in the business of proving metamathematical theorems.
I mentioned in a previous posting that when Hilbert-Ackermann posed the
problem of completeness of their axiomatization of FOL, they provided no
recursive definition of "satisfaction". They simply called a sentence VALID
if no matter what domain was chosen and no matter how the symbols (relation
symbols were all they allowed) were interpreted, a true proposition
(Aussage) would result. This intensional talk is inescapable when one talks
about formalizing mathematics, e.g. in FOL with the ZFC axioms. One writes
down a string of symbols phi and says:
"phi expresses Cantor's Theorem that the cardinality of a power set
of a given set is greater than that of the given set"
Now of course the fact that phi is provable in this system is equivalent to
the validity of the implication A => phi where A is the conjunction of a
suitable set of ZFC axioms. But when one explains in what sense Cantor's
Theorem is provable in ZFC or in what sense the existence of
non-constructible sets follows from ZFC + measurable cardinal, one is
speaking intensionally about sentences in a manner that can not be fully
captured by the discourse Harvey seems prepared to permit.
In connection with (*) above, consider the sentence:
(Ax,y) (E!z)S(x,y,z) => (Ax,y,z)[S(x,y,z) <=> S(y,x,z)] (**)
There is a clear sense in which for any particular interpretation, this
sentence of FOL expresses the proposition that if the ternary relation
associated with S is that of a binary operation, then that operation is
commutative. We can readily note that that sentence is not valid and that
it is satisfiable, but we must be allowed to say more.
If we move to SOL and consider the sentences obtained from (**) by
prefixing the quantifiers (AS), (ES) , respectively, we obtain sentences
that equally clearly express the false proposition "all binary operations
are commutative" and the true proposition "some binary relations are
commutative" respectively.
Martin
Martin Davis
Visiting Scholar UC Berkeley
Professor Emeritus, NYU
martin at eipye.com
(Add 1 and get 0)
http://www.eipye.com
More information about the FOM
mailing list