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.

Using quantitative methods, we investigate the role of logic in analytic philosophy from 1941 to 2010. In particular, a corpus of five journals publishing analytic philosophy is assessed and evaluated against three main criteria: the presence of logic, its role and level of technical sophistication. The analysis reveals that logic is not present at all in nearly three-quarters of the corpus, the instrumental role of logic prevails over the non-instrumental ones, and the level of technical sophistication increases in time, although (...) it remains relatively low. These results are used to challenge the view, widespread among analytic philosophers and labeled here “prevailing view”, that logic is a widely used and highly sophisticated method to analyze philosophical problems. (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)

The dream of a community of philosophers engaged in inquiry with shared standards of evidence and justification has long been with us. It has led some thinkers puzzled by our mathematical experience to look to mathematics for adjudication between competing views. I am skeptical of this approach and consider Skolem's philosophical uses of the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem to exemplify it. I argue that these uses invariably beg the questions at issue. I say ?uses?, because I claim further that Skolem shifted his (...) position on the philosophical significance of the theorem as a result of a shift in his background beliefs. The nature of this shift and possible explanations for it are investigated. Ironically, Skolem's own case provides a historical example of the philosophical flexibility of his theorem. Our suspicion ought always to be aroused when a proof proves more than its means allow it. Something of this sort might be called ?a puffed-up proof?. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Remarks on the foundations of mathematics (revised edition), vol. 2, 21. (shrink)

Ontology played a very large role in Quine’s philosophy and was one of his major preoccupations from the early 30’s to the end of his life. His work on ontology provided a basic framework for most of the discussions of ontology in analytic philosophy in the second half of the Twentieth Century. There are three main themes (and several sub-themes) that Quine developed in his work. The first is ontological commitment: What are the existential commitments of a theory? The second (...) is ontological reduction: How can an ontology be reduced to (or substituted by) another? And what is the most economical ontology that can be obtained for certain given purposes? The third is criteria of identity: When are entities of some kind (sets, properties, material objects, propositions, meanings, etc.) the same or different? In this paper I discuss Quine’s development of these three themes and some of the problems that were aised in connection with his work. (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)