[FOM] primer on vagueness

Charles Silver silver_1 at mindspring.com
Tue May 24 10:41:33 EDT 2005



> Charles Silver wrote:
> 
> >Stewart Shapiro wrote:
> >" [Things skipped]...
> >    If a man with 0 hairs is bald, then so is a man with 1; 
> >if a man with 1 hair is bald, then so is a man with 2; ...  
> >This argument has 50,002 premises."
> >****
> >    In "Zooming Down The Slippery Slope,"  George
> >Boolos shows how in a standard natural deduction
> >system it is possible to infer essentially the same 
> >conclusion for 1,000,000 (one billion) hairs
> >using fewer than 70 premises.   He then extends
> >this reasoning to various other numbers of hairs--
> >for instance 2^30--while indicating how derivations
> >can be compressed.   He says:  "2^40 is greater than
> >one trillion, and f(40)=7072; thus it would be perfectly
> >feasible, if rather boring, for someone to write down
> >a derivation...[for] any number less than a trillion."
> >...
> >[_Logic, Logic, and Logic_,  pp. 354-369.]
> >
Michael Sheard: 
> There's a similar analysis in my expository paper "Induction the Hard 
> Way"  (American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 105, April 1998, pp. 
> 348-353), where an even more dramatic compression is discussed.  Under 
> that approach, a complete derivation without induction of the conclusion 
> for 2^30 or 2^40 -- or even 2^250 -- takes about 30 lines in informal 
> logic, and some small multiple of that in a formal deductive system.

    About how many lines would be required by your analysis for a standard 
natural deduction system for Sazonov's number, 2^1000?   Would the 
number of lines (and characters on each line) be "perfectly feasible, if rather 
boring," like Boolos's derivations?   

    There must be some well-known results giving lower limits to how 
much compression is theoretically possible, given certain types of 
deductive systems.  Can anyone cite some of these results?

Charlie Silver



More information about the FOM mailing list