Talk:Universal instantiation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Stub-class, Low-priority)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
Stub Class
Low Priority
 Field: Foundations, logic, and set theory
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Quine[edit]

I am reading Quine at the moment (quintessence, extensionalism, Reference and Modality. From this I would like to add to this article:

Universal Instantiation and Existential generalization are two aspects of a single principle, for instead of saying that '(x(x=x)' implies 'Socrates is Socrates', we could as well say that the denial 'Socrates≠Socrates' implies '(∃x(x≠x)'. The principle embodied in these two operations is the link between quantifications and the singular statements that are related to them as instances. Yet it is a principle only by courtesy. It holds only in the case where a term names and, furthermore, occurs referentially[1].

Any ideas, remarks, or changes?
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, since no one has seen fit to leave any comments at all, I will edit the article now.
--Fan Singh Long (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason for the addition. Inasmuch as it an expression of Quine's philosophical views, it is irrelevant to the article at hand, and inasmuch as it a statement of the logical rules of inference of UI and EG, it is simply superfluous. In short, it would be more appropriately included in the article on Quine.

John Aiello (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Poor references[edit]

These:

1. Copi and Cohen
2. Hurley
3. Moore and Parker
4. pg. 71. Symbolic Logic; 5th ed.

cannot be acceptable references. What by Copi and Cohen, Hurley, and Moore and Parker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.221.149 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Quine,W.V.O., Quintessence, Extensionalism, Reference and Modality, P366