Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    CL applies to functions and is a principle of first-order... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The relational generalization of CL is second-order in nature, unlike CL itself

    CL applies to functions and is a principle of first-order logic

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The generalization of CL to arbitrary relations requires quantification over rel...The relational generalization of CL is second-order in nature, unlike CL itself

    Similar

    The Cantor-Lawvere principle (CL) is a theorem of first-order logic, n...86%Δ¹₁-formulas are logically equivalent to first-order formulas.80%Peirce arrived at an elementary and informal presentation of first-ord...80%Lindström (1969) proved that first-order logic is the strongest logic ...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: church
    View source passageHide passage
    It’s worth mentioning, firstly, that this principle underlies diagonal argumentation in general (cf. Gaifman 2006). Even venerable examples such as Post’s informal argument that there is a recursively enumerable set of positive integers whose complement is not recursively enumerable, rely in essence on CL (Davis 1965: 312). A slight variant of CL is frequently found in the literature on undecidability (cf. Shoenfield 1967: 131). Secondly, the proof of CL does not rely essentially on any axiom

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective