| Sumario: | The article critiques the standard view of logical formulas, which equates them with specific strings of symbol types, arguing that this perspective is flawed due to issues of arbitrariness, the impracticality of large symbol sets, and the existence of mixed formulas that combine symbols and sets. It proposes a structuralist view, suggesting that formulas should be understood in terms of their relational roles rather than as fixed entities. This shift allows for a more flexible understanding of logical languages, accommodating various representations and addressing philosophical debates, particularly around nominalism in mathematics. The author concludes that while the mathematical practice remains unchanged, the structuralist perspective offers a more accurate ontological framework for understanding logical formulas.
|
|---|