[FOM] The Irrelevance of definite descriptions in the Slingshot Argument?
Neil Tennant
neilt at mercutio.cohums.ohio-state.edu
Thu Sep 28 11:55:18 EDT 2006
How does (3) follow from (2) in either of these arguments?
Neil Tennant
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 A.S.Virdi at lse.ac.uk wrote:
> Can anyone think of any significant mathematical difference between the
> following two arguments?
>
> 1. s Premise
> 2. {x: x = d & s} = {x: x = d} From 1., given substitution salva
> veritate of logical equivalents
> 3. {x: x = d & t} = {x: x = d} From 2., given substitution salva
> veritate of co-referring terms
> 4. t From 3., given substitution salva
> veritate of logical equivalents
>
> And (with i is the iota/definite-description operator)
>
> 1. s Premise
> 2. ix(x = d & s) = ix(x = d) From 1., given substitution salva
> veritate of logical equivalents
> 3. ix(x = d & t) = ix(x = d) From 2., given substitution salva
> veritate of co-referring terms
> 4. t From 3., given substitution salva
> veritate of logical equivalents
More information about the FOM
mailing list