1
$\begingroup$

Wikipedia says: First-order logic quantifies only variables that range over individuals (elements of the domain of discourse); second-order logic, in addition, also quantifies over relations. For example, the second-order sentence ${\displaystyle \forall P\,\forall x(x\in P\lor x\notin P)} \forall P\,\forall x(x\in P\lor x\notin P)$.

Who has first published this doctrin? And why has it been accepted?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

Modern logic began with Boole, Peirce and Frege.

Frege's system (1879) was the first "fully formalized" system of mathematical logic and was a Second- and Higher-order system of Predicate Logic: quantification over predicate of any order was allowed.

Subsequently, the first modern math lofic textbook: Hilbert & Ackermann's Grundzüge der Theoretischen Logik (1928) codified the distinction between first-order: quantification over individuals but not predicates, and second- and higher-order.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the nice references. They partially answer the second part of my question. They do not answer however this question: In a theory without urelements everything (sets, relations, functions, predicates) is an element of some set and as such an individual. Could you extend your answer to this aspect? $\endgroup$
    – Franz Kurz
    Dec 27, 2017 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Wilhelm - "In a theory without urelements everything" is a set: relations, functions, numbers. The "usual" set theories are first-order; thus, the individual variables are quantified and they stand for sets. Teht have only one predicate symbol: the binary relation ∈. $\endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Dec 27, 2017 at 11:39
  • $\begingroup$ I fully agree with you. Therefore I do not comprehend what second-order logic should be good for. Everything is a set and as such an individual and subject to first-order logic, better simply denoted as "logic". $\endgroup$
    – Franz Kurz
    Dec 28, 2017 at 8:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Wilhelm - SOL is more "expressive" than FOL; there are well-known example of mathematical properties that are not expressible in FOL. $\endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Dec 28, 2017 at 8:56
  • $\begingroup$ Can you give an example? As far as I am informed it is impossible to quantify over all real numbers in FOL. I do not agree. I quantify over all real numbers and over all relations and functions I like. $\endgroup$
    – Franz Kurz
    Dec 28, 2017 at 9:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.