Graham Priest - Frege

A lecture on Gottlob Frege's legacy.

[@MontyCantsin5]

Excellent talk.

[@hookedonafeeling100]

Creative, inspiring and great fun; doubly so in the light of the the half empty aula. Keep up the good work Mr. Priest! Your audience is a flock of turtles: we get it slowly, patiently.

[@naayou99]

Thank you for posting it. Priest did an awesome job presenting Frege's ideas in a nutshell. would be nice if Priest has a similar presentation on B. Russell.

[@MindForgedManacle]

Great talk. It had a lot of useful content for me!

[@RealNRD]

Thanks for posting this!

[@randomharass]

This was superb. Thank you!

[@oooltra]

Thank you for this

[@andrewwells6323]

A very interesting video. Thank you for uploading.

[@braininahat]

Great lecture

[@xmikeydx]

Thank you very much for this upload.

[@johnvilla3]

That all for one and one for all could be unambiguously interpreted by iff wff makes this lecture so much more amazing that the ostrich is willing to reveal 'er head.

[@cladwith]

great

[@timblackburn1593]

In the long run we're all enlightened

[@stefos6431]

Sounds to me, a newbie in mathematical philosophy, that Herr Frege was a genius.

[@jyak27]

a set of all sets is a spike

[@Kemenesfalvi]

I might be wrong but I think EyAx and AxEy mean the same thing. The differents that he wants to show is not in the order, but if we say that: Ax Ey xSy and if xSz->z=y. If i'm wrong about this could somebody explain what's the difference between the two formulation of continuity mean? I studied mathematics so I can read the notations, but I can't figure out the difference.

[@tomwright9904]

Out of date but for other readers. If, EyAx ySx, then we can take one such y, say Y and then for any x YSx However if AxEy ySx you don't necessarily have such a Y.

[@Blodhosta]

They're not quite the same. EyAx(xSy) logically implies AxEy(xSy), but not the other way around. The first singles out an individual standing in the relation to all x; the second says all x stand in that relation to some individual or other. The relation < among the natural numbers would be an example to make it clearer how the implication does not go both ways. AxEy(xSy ^ (xSz → y=z)) says that everybody saw exactly one person, but not necessarily the same person.

[@pilleater]

AxA

[@michaelhaag3367]

lucid talk