The use of the symbol ∨for disjunction in formal logic is ubiquitous. Where did it come from? The paper details the evolution of the symbol ∨ in its historical and logical context. Some sources say that disjunction in its use as connecting propositions or formulas was introduced by Peano; others suggest that it originated as an abbreviation of the Latin word for “or,” vel. We show that the origin of the symbol ∨ for disjunction can be traced to Whitehead and (...) Russell’s pre-Principia work in formal logic. Because of Principia’s influence, its notation was widely adopted by philosophers working in logic (the logical empiricists in the 1920s and 1930s, especially Carnap and early Quine). Hilbert’s adoption of ∨ in his Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik guaranteed its widespread use by mathematical logicians. The origins of other logical symbols are also discussed. (shrink)

Recent historical studies have investigated the first proponents of methodological structuralism in late nineteenth-century mathematics. In this paper, I shall attempt to answer the question of whether Peano can be counted amongst the early structuralists. I shall focus on Peano’s understanding of the primitive notions and axioms of geometry and arithmetic. First, I shall argue that the undefinability of the primitive notions of geometry and arithmetic led Peano to the study of the relational features of the systems of objects that (...) compose these theories. Second, I shall claim that, in the context of independence arguments, Peano developed a schematic understanding of the axioms which, despite diverging in some respects from Dedekind’s construction of arithmetic, should be considered structuralist. From this stance I shall argue that this schematic understanding of the axioms anticipates the basic components of a formal language. (shrink)

Contemporary logicians continue to address problems associated with the existential import of categorical propositions. One notable problem concerns invalid instances of subalternation in the case of a universal proposition with an empty subject term. To remedy problems, logicians restrict first-order predicate logics to exclude such terms. Examining the historical origins of contemporary discussions reveals that logicians continue to make various category mistakes. We now believe that no proposition per se has existential import as commonly understood and thus it is unnecessary (...) to restrict first-order predicate logics to non-empty classes. After introducing the problem, we trace some nineteenth century treatments of the issue to locate a source of misconstruing propositional import in misconceptions of ‘implies’ and ‘affirms’ and name the process/product fallacy, along with the translation of categorical sentences using quantifiers and accommodating an empty class. Next we treat some metalogical matters to orient our discussion by which we provide a more precise nomenclature about ‘sentence’ and ‘proposition’ to correct previous misconceptions; here we uncover a common category mistake in respect of a proposition’s efficacy. The semantic distinction between agent and force is helpful in this connection. We conclude by showing that logicians have reinserted existence as a predicate, a position previously excised by Kant, and that the Frege-Russell ambiguity thesis applies only to relationships within a categorical sentence between grammatical predicate and subject. (shrink)

At the beginning of Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik [1884], Frege observes that “it is in the nature of mathematics to prefer proof, where proof is possible”. This, of course, is true, but thinkers differ on why it is that mathematicians prefer proof. And what of propositions for which no proof is possible? What of axioms? This talk explores various notions of self-evidence, and the role they play in various foundational systems, notably those of Frege and Zermelo. I argue that both (...) programs are undermined at a crucial point, namely when self-evidence is supported by holistic and even pragmatic considerations. (shrink)

I once wrote to Imré Lakatos that if he had not already established himself as an accomplished philosopher and provocateur, he could have made a successful career as a Hollywood script writer. I had in mind, at that time, a beautifully written paper he had constructed by pasting together the cuttings from other papers. I had forgotten that his reputation as a dramatist was already established, with the production of his Proofs and Refutations [9]. For that work, it seems to (...) me, is simply a play within a play. The main character, whose part is written in the footnotes, delivers a monologue which is a commentary on the drama, between teacher and students, that occupies center stage. This main character is not named in the play, so for ease of reference I shall call him “Imré”. What Imré points out is that the drama on center stage imitates life, in showing us the essential features of the methodology by virtue of which mathematical science grows. (shrink)