Hilary Putnam’s BIV argument first occurred to him when ‘thinking about a theorem in modern logic, the “Skolem–Löwenheim Theorem”’ (Putnam 1981: 7). One of my aims in this paper is to explore the connection between the argument and the Theorem. But I also want to draw some further connections. In particular, I think that Putnam’s BIV argument provides us with an impressively versatile template for dealing with sceptical challenges. Indeed, this template allows us to unify some of Putnam’s most enduring (...) contributions to the realism/antirealism debate: his discussions of brains-in-vats, of Skolem’s Paradox, and of permutations. In all three cases, we have an argument which does not merely defeat the sceptic; it also shows us that we must reject some prima facie plausible philosophical picture. (shrink)

Over the years, Skolem’s Paradox has generated a fairly steady stream of philosophical discussion; nonetheless, the overwhelming consensus among philosophers and logicians is that the paradox doesn’t constitute a mathematical problem (i.e., it doesn’t constitute a real contradiction). Further, there’s general agreement as to why the paradox doesn’t constitute a mathematical problem. By looking at the way firstorder structures interpret quantifiers—and, in particular, by looking at how this interpretation changes as we move from structure to structure—we can give a technically (...) adequate “solution” to Skolem’s Paradox. So, whatever the philosophical upshot of Skolem’s Paradox may be, the mathematical side of Skolem’s Paradox seems to be relatively straightforward. (shrink)

ریاضیدانان هرروز با مجموعههای ناشمارا، مجموعهی توانی، خوشترتیبی، تناهی و ... سروکار دارند و با این تصور که این مفاهیم همان چیزهایی هستند که در ذهن دارند، کتابها و اثباتهای ریاضی را میخوانند و میفهمند و درمورد آنها صحبت میکنند. اما آیا این مفاهیم همان چیزهایی هستند که ریاضیدانان تصور میکنند؟ اولینبار اسکولم با بیان یک پارادوکس شک خود را به این موضوع ابراز کرد. بنابر قضیهی لوونهایم اسکولم رو به پایین، نظریه مجموعهها مدلی شمارا دارد. این مدل قضیهی کانتور (...) را که بیان میکند مجموعهای ناشمارا وجود دارد برآورده میکند؛ ولی مدل شمارا دارای دامنهای شامل شمارا عضو است. پس برای بیان وجود مجموعهای ناشمارا مانند ℝ تنها شمارا عضو داریم. این جمالت به پارادوکس اسکولم مشهور شدند. بنابرین مجموعهی ناشمارایمان در واقع شمارا بهنظر میرسد. از زمانی که پارادوکس فهمیده شد تا به امروز بحث های زیادی در رد و تایید آن بوده است. گروهی تا آنجا پیش رفتند که ادعا کردند همهی مجموعهها شمارا هستند. در این پایان نامه پرسش های مقابل بررسی شدهاند: آیا مجموعههای ناشمارا واقعا وجود دارند؟ آیا پارادوکس اسکولم نشان میدهد که نظریههای مرتبه دوم برای مدل کردن کاربرد ریاضیات مناسبتر هستند؟ پارادوکس اسکولم درمورد درک ما از نظریه مجموعهها و سمانتیک آن چه نتیجهای دارد؟ خواهیم دید بهتر است درمورد وجود مجموعههای ناشمارا، موضع الادری را برگزینیم، پارادوکس اسکولم نتیجه نمیدهد نظریههای مرتبه دوم برای مدل کردن کاربرد ریاضیات مناسب هستند و درمورد درک ما از نظریه مجموعهها نتیجهای نخواهد داشت. (shrink)

I discuss Skolem's own ideas on his ‘paradox’, some classical disputes between Skolemites and Antiskolemites, and the underlying notion of ‘informal mathematics’, from a point of view which I hope to be rather unusual. I argue that the Skolemite cannot maintain that from an absolute point of view everything is in fact denumerable; on the other hand, the Antiskolemite is left with the onus of explaining the notion of informal mathematical knowledge of the intended model of set theory. 1 conclude (...) that one must take seriously the embodiment of the uncountable into countable languages, as a symptom of some specific features which characterize mathematical languages with respect to other languages. (shrink)

We present a framework that provides a logic for science by generalizing the notion of logical (Tarskian) consequence. This framework will introduce hierarchies of logical consequences, the first level of each of which is identified with deduction. We argue for identification of the second level of the hierarchies with inductive inference. The notion of induction presented here has some resonance with Popper's notion of scientific discovery by refutation. Our framework rests on the assumption of a restricted class of structures in (...) contrast to the permissibility of classical first-order logic. We make a distinction between deductive and inductive inference via the notions of compactness and weak compactness. Connections with the arithmetical hierarchy and formal learning theory are explored. For the latter, we argue against the identification of inductive inference with the notion of learnable in the limit. Several results highlighting desirable properties of these hierarchies of generalized logical consequence are also presented. (shrink)

In “Models and Reality”, H. Putnam formulated his model-theoretic argument against “metaphysical realism”. The article proposes a meta-reconstruction of Putnam’s model-theoretic argument in the light of two mutually compatible interpretations of it–elaborated by Manuel Garcia-Carpintero and Igor van Douven. A critical reflection on these interpretations and their adequacy for Putnam’s argument allows us to expose new theses coherent with Putnam’s reasoning and indicate new paths to improve this argument for our reconstruction task. In particular, we show that Putnam’s position may (...) be coherent with van Douven’s versions of Global Descriptivism under some conditions, but Putnam cannot reject realism as quickly as Carpintero suggests. We show that Suszko’s canonic axiomatic system and Sneed’s concept of theory may provide valuable support for Putnam’s argument. Finally, we critically evaluate Carpintero’s theses about the genesis of unintended interpretations of our languages, adopting the machinery of the Upward Skolem–Loewenheim Theorem and Knight’s Theorem. (shrink)

In this paper I discuss Ernst Zermelo’s ideas concerning the possibility of developing a system of infinitary logic that, in his opinion, should be suitable for mathematical inferences. The presentation of Zermelo’s ideas is accompanied with some remarks concerning the development of infinitary logic. I also stress the fact that the second axiomatization of set theory provided by Zermelo in 1930 involved the use of extremal axioms of a very specific sort.1.