Article View: sci.logic
Article #557Re: recursive definitions and paradoxes
From: David Gudeman
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:30
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:30
46 lines
2392 bytes
2392 bytes
In article <BxzG21.Gnr@unx.sas.com> Gary Merrill writes: ] ]In article <26788@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: ] ]|> I propose for discussion the ]|> ]|> Axiom of Definition: (X := E /\ Exist! X.X=E) => X = E ]|> ]|> where "Exist! x" means "there exists a unique x such that". What if you ] ]I have not *carefully* read the rest of this posting. However, on ]the face of it, it appears that this "axiom of definition" is quite ]suspect. I'm not sure what ] ] X := E ] ]means. If it is really intended to represent a *definition* of X, ]then why is the new axiom necessary? What exactly is the symbol ]':=' meant to express beyond (or short of) '='? The symbol '=' alone does not point out what variable is being defined, but ':=', (which is defined formally by its usage) does. I did not discuss the rules for introducing X := E because they seemed uninteresting. It is clear that you need syntactic rules to avoid naming conflicts and that rules must cover a range of clauses in a proof. That is, a definition has a scope that includes more than just the clause in which it is introduced. Clearly, no axiom or normal rule of inference is adequate to specify this. ]... Definitions must ]satisfy such criteria as non-creativity (you can't prove something ][in "old" notation] by using the definition that you couldn't ]without it) and eliminability (the defined notation must be eliminable ]in *all* contexts). The fact that the above axiom is being suggested ]seems to imply that the proposed "definition" does not satisfy the ]criterion of eliminability... Exactly. Actually, my notion of definition does not satisfy either of the two notions you mention. Recursive definitions are creative and non-eliminable, and for that reason they have to be protected with an axiom that limits their use. Non-creative, eliminable definitions are no more than abbreviations, and mathematics cannot be done with such a sparse notion of definition. -- David Gudeman gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<26841@optima.cs.arizona.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!destroyer!ncar!noao!arizona!gudemanShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!destroyer!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: recursive definitions and paradoxes Message-ID: <26841@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Date: 20 Nov 92 17:30:34 GMT Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 46