Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A classic example of correspondence theory is the statement by the medieval philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas: "Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus" ("Truth is the adequation of things and intellect"), which Aquinas attributed to the ninth-century Neoplatonist Isaac Israeli. [3] [5] [6]
Theory is constructed of a set of sentences that are thought to be true statements about the subject under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole theory. Therefore, the same statement may be true with respect to one theory, and not true with respect to another.
The theory of finite fields is the set of all first-order statements that are true in all finite fields. Significant examples of such statements can, for example, be given by applying the Chevalley–Warning theorem, over the prime fields. The name is a little misleading as the theory has plenty of infinite models.
A classic example of correspondence theory is the statement by the thirteenth century philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas: "Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus" ("Truth is the adequation of things and intellect"), which Aquinas attributed to the ninth century Neoplatonist Isaac Israeli.
For example, atomic theory is an approximation of quantum mechanics. ... The logical positivists thought of scientific theories as statements in a formal language.
"A theory is scientific if and only if it divides the class of basic statements into the following two non-empty sub-classes: (a) the class of all those basic statements with which it is inconsistent, or which it prohibits—this is the class of its potential falsifiers (i.e., those statements which, if true, falsify the whole theory), and (b ...
Card paradox: "The next statement is true. The previous statement is false." A variant of the liar paradox in which neither of the sentences employs (direct) self-reference, instead this is a case of circular reference. No-no paradox: Two sentences that each say the other is not true.
A complete consistent theory (or just a complete theory) is a consistent theory such that for every sentence φ in its language, either φ is provable from or {φ} is inconsistent. For theories closed under logical consequence, this means that for every sentence φ, either φ or its negation is contained in the theory. [ 3 ]