## Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments | |||

Author | Item | Excerpt | Meta data |
---|---|---|---|

Books on Amazon |
Berka I 405f Conclusion/Entailment/Formal/Everyday Language/Tarski: the formal one does not coincide with the everyday language one - E.g. A0: 0 has the given property P - A1: 1 has the given property P, etc. -An: n has the given property P - with normal rules of inference it is impossible to prove the following proposition with this: A: Every natural number has the given property P - Solution: new rule of inference: infinite induction - Problem: infinite - Solution: provability rather than actual evidence. Berka I 407 Inference/Entailment/GĂ¶del: Problem: statements can be constructed that follow in the usual sense from the sentences of a theory, but which cannot be proven with the rules of inference Berka I 409 Def Logical Conclusion/Tarski: the statement X logically follows from the statements of the class K iff. each model of class K is at the same time a model of the statement X. I 410 Def of the logical conclusion has to do with the division into logical and extra-logical concepts - which is arbitrary. |
Tarsk I A. Tarski Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923-38 Indianapolis 1983 Brk I K. Berka/L. Kreiser Logik Texte Berlin 1983 |

> Counter arguments against **Tarski**

> Counter arguments in relation to **Conditional**

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei

Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-05-25