Specialization-generalization(mathematical logic)

  • Thread starter Thread starter RockyMarciano
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic
Click For Summary
Specialization in mathematical logic defines a concept B as a specialization of concept A if every instance of B is also an instance of A, while some instances of A do not belong to B. This definition implies that A cannot be a special case of B simultaneously, as it would create a contradiction and lead to an inconsistent conceptual system. The discussion raises the question of whether scientifically founded theories must adhere to this specialization logic for consistency. There is a consensus that many established theories may not meet this consistency requirement, which could surprise some. The presence of degenerate cases complicates this issue, potentially indicating underlying inconsistencies.
RockyMarciano
Messages
588
Reaction score
43
Specialization as defined in Wikipedia:
"Concept B is a specialisation of concept A if and only if:

  • every instance of concept B is also an instance of concept A; and
  • there are instances of concept A which are not instances of concept B"
We then call B as special case of A, it seems evident from the definition that in no case, given this definition, can A be simultaneously a special case of B, because it would be in contradiction and that conceptual system would be inconsistent.

Should scientific theories(mathematically founded) follow this logic or can you think of any example that wouldn't necessarily? In other words is this a requirement for consistent scientific theories?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yes :smile:
 
BvU said:
yes :smile:
Thanks, I supposed so but I wanted to confirm it, people would be surprised by certain established theories that don't fulfill this consistency check.
 
RockyMarciano said:
Thanks, I supposed so but I wanted to confirm it, people would be surprised by certain established theories that don't fulfill this consistency check.
Perhaps the issue is not so clear when the special cases happen to be also degenerate cases, but then I can see that in itself as a symptom of possible inconsistency.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K