imported>Ashkotin: Created page with "From our google group: "[Alex:]Any definition may be written in a form of an axiom, but this is just a trick in mathematical logic. It does not eliminate the logic of definiti..."

2018-04-23T14:55:14Z

Created page with "From our google group: "[Alex:]Any definition may be written in a form of an axiom, but this is just a trick in mathematical logic. It does not eliminate the logic of definiti..."

New page

From our google group:
"[Alex:]Any definition may be written in a form of an axiom, but this
is just a trick in mathematical logic. It does not eliminate the
logic of definition when we build a theory and study its objects.

[JFS:]First, a definition is assumed to be true "by definition", but
an axiom is just assumed to be true. If an axiom is false about
something, there is no paradox. It just means that the thing
in question doesn't exist in any model of the theory.

But the claim that certain axioms are definitions gives them
a higher status. That creates the so-called "Russell" paradox
about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.

Cantor noticed that so-called "set" long before Russell.
But he dismissed it by saying that it violates the axioms.
Therefore, it cannot exist in any model. End of paradox.

But Frege stated the critical axiom in his *definition* of sets.
That meant that the paradoxical thing must exist "by definition".
It could not be dismissed. Ergo, contradiction. And panic.

Common Logic avoids paradoxes by adopting Cantor's policy.
CL does not have any keyword spelled D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N.
In CL, you can write axioms, but you can't declare that any
of them are true "by definition"."
{{wl-publish: 2018-04-23 10:55:14 -0400 | Ashkotin }}

Blog:Definition: idea, logic, practise/Reducing definitions - Revision history

imported>Ashkotin: Created page with "From our google group: "[Alex:]Any definition may be written in a form of an axiom, but this is just a trick in mathematical logic. It does not eliminate the logic of definiti..."