The footnote refers to Schröder's work. I'd appreciate if someone can explain Schroder's insights and spare me some hard reading.
2026-03-29 04:26:20.1774758380
How does Schröder explain the apparent oddity of ❋5.11.12.13.14 in 1st ed of Whitehead and Russell's PM?
239 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in MATH-HISTORY
- Are there negative prime numbers?
- University math curriculum focused on (or inclusive of) "great historical works" of math?
- Did Grothendieck acknowledge his collaborators' intellectual contributions?
- Translation of the work of Gauss where the fast Fourier transform algorithm first appeared
- What about the 'geometry' in 'geometric progression'?
- Discovery of the first Janko Group
- Has miscommunication ever benefited mathematics? Let's list examples.
- Neumann Theorem about finite unions of cosets
- What is Euler doing?
- A book that shows history of mathematics and how ideas were formed?
Related Questions in PHILOSOPHY
- Does Planck length contradict math?
- Should axioms be seen as "building blocks of definitions"?
- Difference between provability and truth of Goodstein's theorem
- Decidability and "truth value"
- Is it possible to construct a formal system such that all interesting statements from ZFC can be proven within the system?
- Why linear congruential generator is called random number generator?
- Why is negative minus negative not negative? Why is negative times positive not directionless?
- What's the difference between a proof and a derivation?
- Godel's Theorems and Conventionalism
- Is "This sentence is true" true or false (or both); is it a proposition?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Schröder says in his book that this formula looks paradox on the first glance since there is a conclusion $r$ on the right side while $r$ does not occur on the left side of the formula. The oddity is that the premise on the left side knows nothing about the statement $r$.
More literally: Very paradoxical at first glance the universal pair of formulas of propositional calculus:
Paradox because the statement $c$, over which the right conclusion reported in the left premise does not occur, it can thus contain no information on that statement, while is nonetheless entitled to conclude from the statement left-hand to refer to the right hand "deductive". (http://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/view/schroeder_logik0201_1891?p=294)