DOCSLIB.ORG

Handbook Vatican 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Handbook Vatican 2014 HANDBOOK OF THE WORLD CONGRESS ON THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION IV Pontifical Lateran University, Vatican May 5-9, 2014 Edited by Jean-Yves Béziau and Katarzyna Gan-Krzywoszyńska www.square-of-opposition.org 1 2 Contents 1. Fourth World Congress on the Square of Opposition ..................................................... 7 1.1. The Square : a Central Object for Thought ..................................................................................7 1.2. Aim of the Congress.....................................................................................................................8 1.3. Scientific Committee ...................................................................................................................9 1.4. Organizing Committee .............................................................................................................. 10 2. Plenary Lectures ................................................................................................... 11 Gianfranco Basti "Scientia una contrariorum": Paraconsistency, Induction, and Formal Ontology ..... 11 Jean-Yves Béziau Square of Opposition: Past, Present and Future ....................................................... 12 Manuel Correia Machuca The Didactic and Theoretical Expositions of the Square of Opposition in Aristotelian logic ....................................................................................................................... 13 Rusty Jones Bivalence and Contradictory Pairs in Aristotle’s De Interpretatione ................................. 13 Bora İ Kumova Symmetric Properties of the Syllogistic System Inherited from the Square of Opposition 14 Wolfgang Lenzen Leibniz’s Logic and the Double Square of Opposition ............................................... 15 Lorenzo Magnani Violence Hexagon. Moral Philosophy through Drawing ........................................... 16 Frederic Nef Ontological square ............................................................................................................ 17 Henri Prade A Hexagonal View of Artificial Intelligence ....................................................................... 17 John Woods How Globalization Makes Inconsistency Unrecognizable ................................................ 18 3. Abstracts of Contributors ...................................................................................... 19 Duilio D’Alfonso Typing duality relations .............................................................................................. 19 Sidney Axinn Toward The Logic of Ambivalence: the Cube of Opposition ........................................... 20 François Beets From the Square of Oppositions to the Coincidence of Opposites .............................. 21 Rainhard Z. Bengez On Deontic Hypercubes, Absolut, and Relatives Rights ........................................ 21 Juan Manuel Campos Benítez How to pass from the Square to the Octagon of Opposition .............. 22 Tal Dotan Ben-Soussan and Patrizio Paoletti Plasticity in the Square – from a philosophical model to neurocognitive applications ..................................................................................................... 23 Christoph Benzmüller and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo Gödel's Proof of God's Existence ..................... 24 Frode Bjørdal The Cube of Opposition for Agentual Directives ........................................................... 25 Carolina Blasio and João Marcos When the Square meets the Cross: Towards a generalized notion of entailment ................................................................................................................................ 26 Walter Carnielli Groups, not Squares: unveiling a fetish ...................................................................... 27 Massimiliano Carrara and Daniele Chiffi A logical framework for hypotheses and their opposition relations .................................................................................................................................... 28 Ferdinando Cavaliere Iconic and Dynamic Models to represent ‘distinctive’ predicates: the Octagonal Prism and the Complex Tetrahedron of Opposition ................................................................ 29 Saloua Chatti Al Fārābī on contrary practical concepts ........................................................................ 30 Boris Chendov Square of opposition and its enlargement in the dyadic modal logic ......................... 31 Jean-Marie Chevalier Representing Existential Import With Quadrants .............................................. 33 Janusz Ciuciura Kraszewski's Syllogistic ................................................................................................ 33 Stefano Colloca Two Kinds of Incompatibility in Law ............................................................................ 35 Yusuf Dasdemir Avicenna on the Opposition of Conditional Propositions ........................................... 35 Paul J.E. Dekker A Cube, a Prism and a Fork of Oppositions ................................................................. 36 3 Lorenz Demey Logical Geometries and Information in the Square and its Extensions ........................ 37 Lorenz Demey & Hans Smessaert Algebraic and Cognitive Aspects of Presenting Aristotelian Diagrams38 Jean-Pierre Desclés, Anca Christine Pascu The “Cube of Oppositions” in the Logic of Determination of Objects (LDO) and in the Logic of Typical and Atypical Instances (LTA) ................................... 39 Antonino Drago From Aristotle’s Square of Opposition to “Tri-Unity’s Concordance”: Cusanus’ Non- Classical Arguing about God ..................................................................................................... 41 Laurent Dubois Opposition² : a Logico-Divergent Approach of the Classical Aristotelian Square ....... 42 Marie Duží Squaring the Square of Opposition with empty concepts .................................................. 43 Patrik Eklund A Lative Logic view of the Filioque Addition ................................................................... 44 Luis Estrada-González An application of quaternality theory to topos logic ........................................ 45 S. Benjamin Fink Oppositions in Introspective Disputes & Phenomenology ........................................ 46 Hector Freytes, Chris de Ronde and Gabriela Domenech The Orthomodular Square of Opposition and the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ....................................................... 47 Tzu-Keng Fu On Institutional Contradiction and Organizational Plurality ............................................ 48 Robert L. Gallagher Being and contradiction in Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Physics .......................... 49 Katarzyna Gan-Krzywoszyńska and Piotr Leśniewski Rationality as Indifference. On a Love-Hate Hexagon in the Foundations of Humanities ............................................................................. 50 José David García-Cruz From the Square to Octhaedra ........................................................................ 50 Stamatios Gerogiorgakis The Mereological Square .............................................................................. 51 Alfredo Di Giorgio Square of Opposition and Existential Assumptions in late Scholastic tradition ...... 52 Raffaela Giovagnoli and Philip Larrey Aristotle, Frege and “Second Nature” ...................................... 53 Paul M. Healey Back to Hegel and the right square .............................................................................. 54 Anne Hénault The Square of Opposition in All its States ..................................................................... 55 Jean-Louis Hudry Aristotle on Deduction and Empty Terms ................................................................. 56 Dale Jacquette Subalternation and Existence Presuppositions in a Simplified Unconventional Square of Opposition ............................................................................................................................ 57 Colin James III Recent advances in polyadic predicate logic of n-variables (PLN) ............................... 58 Tomasz Jarmużek and Andrzej Pietruszczak Tableaus for Numerical Syllogistic .................................. 60 Dany Jaspers The Growth of Lexical Fields ............................................................................................ 61 Dany Jaspers and Pieter A.M. Seuren The Catholic factor in 20 th century Square studies ................... 62 Priyedarshi Jetli Knowing and Doing Wedded through Epistemodeontic Square, Hexagon, Cube and Hexagonal Prism of Opposition ................................................................................................ 62 Spencer Johnston Buridan’s Octagon of Opposition & Ontological Commitment ............................... 64 Tomasz Jordan Three opposition-forming negations as truth functional unary connectives .............. 64 Andreas Kapsner On Guilt and Innocence ............................................................................................. 65 Rainer Kivi Whether Aristotle applied octagonal calculator to compute his ethics? ............................ 66 William Lewis Klein Blood > Money > Information: The Pattern and Direction of Human History ...... 68 Yaroslav Kokhan Pragmatic Square of Opposition ................................................................................ 69 Przemysław
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Two Squares of Opposition: the Conceptual Square Underwrites the Alethic Square’S Validity
    1 TWO SQUARES OF OPPOSITION: THE CONCEPTUAL SQUARE UNDERWRITES THE ALETHIC SQUARE’S VALIDITY ABSTRACT I have made explicit an implicit conceptual logic that exists in the English lang- uage and others; its evaluation terms of propositions are coherent|incoherent. This con- trasts with the usual alethic true|false evaluations for statement logic. I call conceptual logic a basement logic; it’s more basic than statement logic. I demonstrate this by show- ing how the long-standard, ever-present Alethic Square of Opposition’s AEIO state- ments’ truth value and the validity of their immediate inferences rests on the Conceptual Square’s (a) coherent propositions and (b) coherent emplacements of substantives and tropes into, respectively, AEIOs’ subjects and predicates. ConceptFunctor operations bear the leutic [Enjoined] modal that governs the coherence of de dicto and de jure grounded propositions. The FactFunctor operation bears the [Allowed] modal that govern coherent emplacement of the world’s substantives and tropes into sentences’ subjects and predicates and, subsequent to that, the truth value of their allied statements. My strategy is (1) to construct a Conceptual Square of Opposition by rewriting the Aletic Square’s AEIO statements as conceptual propositions. (2) If the propositions are coherent by virtue of coherent emplacements of substantives and tropes into their subjects and predicates that turns them into conceptualized substantives and tropes, then, by the Coherence Account of Truth, they entail the truth of the Alethic Squares’ statements and the validity of its traditionally accepted inferences. (3) This is enough to prove conceptual logic is the basement ground for the traditional Alethic Square, and on which any alethic logic rests; and it supports the claims made in (2) above.1 KEY WORDS: Coherence, [Emplace], [Functor], ConceptFunctor, FactFunctor, [Any], collective, distributive, and singular (uses of [Any]), grammatical and semantic subjects and predicates, Concepttual and Alethic Square (of opposition), leutic modal- ities, [Enjoin], [Allow].
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 30 Nordic Workshop on Programming Theory
    Proceedings of the 30th Nordic Workshop on Programming Theory Daniel S. Fava Einar B. Johnsen Olaf Owe Editors Report Nr. 485 ISBN 978-82-7368-450-9 Department of Informatics Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences UNIVERSITY OF OSLO October 24, 2018 NWPT'18 Preface Preface This volume contains the extended abstracts of the talks presented at the 30th Nordic Workshop on Programming Theory held on October 24-26, 2018 in Oslo, Norway. The objective of Nordic Workshop on Programming Theory is to bring together researchers from the Nordic and Baltic countries interested in programming theory, in order to improve mutual contacts and co-operation. However, the workshop also attracts researchers outside this geographical area. In particular, it is targeted at early- stage researchers as a friendly meeting where one can present work in progress. Typical topics of the workshop include: • semantics of programming languages, • programming language design and programming methodology, • programming logics, • formal specification of programs, • program verification, • program construction, • tools for program verification and construction, • program transformation and refinement, • real-time and hybrid systems, • models of concurrency and distributed computing, • language-based security. This volume contains 29 extended abstracts of the presentations at the workshop including the abstracts of the three distinguished invited speakers. Prof. Andrei Sabelfeld, Chalmers University, Sweden Prof. Erika Abrah´am,RWTH´ Aachen University, Germany Prof. Peter Olveczky,¨ University of Oslo, Norway After the workshop selected papers will be invited, based on the quality and topic of their presentation at the workshop, for submission to a special issue of The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Methods in Programming.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Extensions of Aristotle's Square
    Logical Extensions of Aristotle’s Square Dominique Luzeaux, Jean Sallantin, Christopher Dartnell To cite this version: Dominique Luzeaux, Jean Sallantin, Christopher Dartnell. Logical Extensions of Aristotle’s Square. Logica Universalis, Springer Verlag, 2008, 2, pp.167-187. 10.1007/s11787-007-0022-y. lirmm- 00274314 HAL Id: lirmm-00274314 https://hal-lirmm.ccsd.cnrs.fr/lirmm-00274314 Submitted on 17 Apr 2008 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Logical extensions of Aristotle's square Dominique Luzeaux, Jean Sallantin and Christopher Dartnell Abstract. We start from the geometrical-logical extension of Aristotle's square in [Bla66], [Pel06] and [Mor04], and study them from both syntactic and semantic points of view. Recall that Aristotle's square under its modal form has the following four vertices: A is α, E is :α, I is ::α and O is :α, where α is a logical formula and is a modality which can be defined axiomatically within a particular logic known as S5 (classical or intuitionistic, depending on whether : is involutive or not) modal logic. [B´ez03]has proposed extensions which can be interpreted respectively within paraconsistent and paracomplete logical frameworks.
    [Show full text]
  • Alice in the Wonderful Land of Logical Notions)
    The Mystery of the Fifth Logical Notion (Alice in the Wonderful Land of Logical Notions) Jean-Yves Beziau University of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian Research Council and Brazilian Academy of Philosophy [email protected] Abstract We discuss a theory presented in a posthumous paper by Alfred Tarski entitled “What are logical notions?”. Although the theory of these logical notions is something outside of the main stream of logic, not presented in logic textbooks, it is a very interesting theory and can easily be understood by anybody, especially studying the simplest case of the four basic logical notions. This is what we are doing here, as well as introducing a challenging fifth logical notion. We first recall the context and origin of what are here called Tarski- Lindenbaum logical notions. In the second part, we present these notions in the simple case of a binary relation. In the third part, we examine in which sense these are considered as logical notions contrasting them with an example of a non-logical relation. In the fourth part, we discuss the formulations of the four logical notions in natural language and in first- order logic without equality, emphasizing the fact that two of the four logical notions cannot be expressed in this formal language. In the fifth part, we discuss the relations between these notions using the theory of the square of opposition. In the sixth part, we introduce the notion of variety corresponding to all non-logical notions and we argue that it can be considered as a logical notion because it is invariant, always referring to the same class of structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Saving the Square of Opposition∗
    HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2020.1865782 Saving the Square of Opposition∗ PIETER A. M. SEUREN Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Received 19 April 2020 Accepted 15 December 2020 Contrary to received opinion, the Aristotelian Square of Opposition (square) is logically sound, differing from standard modern predicate logic (SMPL) only in that it restricts the universe U of cognitively constructible situations by banning null predicates, making it less unnatural than SMPL. U-restriction strengthens the logic without making it unsound. It also invites a cognitive approach to logic. Humans are endowed with a cogni- tive predicate logic (CPL), which checks the process of cognitive modelling (world construal) for consistency. The square is considered a first approximation to CPL, with a cognitive set-theoretic semantics. Not being cognitively real, the null set Ø is eliminated from the semantics of CPL. Still rudimentary in Aristotle’s On Interpretation (Int), the square was implicitly completed in his Prior Analytics (PrAn), thereby introducing U-restriction. Abelard’s reconstruction of the logic of Int is logically and historically correct; the loca (Leak- ing O-Corner Analysis) interpretation of the square, defended by some modern logicians, is logically faulty and historically untenable. Generally, U-restriction, not redefining the universal quantifier, as in Abelard and loca, is the correct path to a reconstruction of CPL. Valuation Space modelling is used to compute
    [Show full text]
  • Logic-Sensitivity of Aristotelian Diagrams in Non-Normal Modal Logics
    axioms Article Logic-Sensitivity of Aristotelian Diagrams in Non-Normal Modal Logics Lorenz Demey 1,2 1 Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; [email protected] 2 KU Leuven Institute for Artificial Intelligence, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium Abstract: Aristotelian diagrams, such as the square of opposition, are well-known in the context of normal modal logics (i.e., systems of modal logic which can be given a relational semantics in terms of Kripke models). This paper studies Aristotelian diagrams for non-normal systems of modal logic (based on neighborhood semantics, a topologically inspired generalization of relational semantics). In particular, we investigate the phenomenon of logic-sensitivity of Aristotelian diagrams. We distin- guish between four different types of logic-sensitivity, viz. with respect to (i) Aristotelian families, (ii) logical equivalence of formulas, (iii) contingency of formulas, and (iv) Boolean subfamilies of a given Aristotelian family. We provide concrete examples of Aristotelian diagrams that illustrate these four types of logic-sensitivity in the realm of normal modal logic. Next, we discuss more subtle examples of Aristotelian diagrams, which are not sensitive with respect to normal modal logics, but which nevertheless turn out to be highly logic-sensitive once we turn to non-normal systems of modal logic. Keywords: Aristotelian diagram; non-normal modal logic; square of opposition; logical geometry; neighborhood semantics; bitstring semantics MSC: 03B45; 03A05 Citation: Demey, L. Logic-Sensitivity of Aristotelian Diagrams in Non-Normal Modal Logics. Axioms 2021, 10, 128. https://doi.org/ 1. Introduction 10.3390/axioms10030128 Aristotelian diagrams, such as the so-called square of opposition, visualize a number Academic Editor: Radko Mesiar of formulas from some logical system, as well as certain logical relations holding between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Web Corrections-Vector Logic and Counterfactuals-Rev 2
    This article was published in: "Logic Journal of IGPL" Online version: doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzaa026, 2020 Vector logic allows counterfactual virtualization by The Square Root of NOT Eduardo Mizraji Group of Cognitive Systems Modeling, Biophysics and Systems Biology Section, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Montevideo, Uruguay Abstract In this work we investigate the representation of counterfactual conditionals using the vector logic, a matrix-vectors formalism for logical functions and truth values. Inside this formalism, the counterfactuals can be transformed in complex matrices preprocessing an implication matrix with one of the square roots of NOT, a complex matrix. This mathematical approach puts in evidence the virtual character of the counterfactuals. This happens because this representation produces a valuation of a counterfactual that is the superposition of the two opposite truth values weighted, respectively, by two complex conjugated coefficients. This result shows that this procedure gives an uncertain evaluation projected on the complex domain. After this basic representation, the judgment of the plausibility of a given counterfactual allows us to shift the decision towards an acceptance or a refusal. This shift is the result of applying for a second time one of the two square roots of NOT. Keywords : Vector logic; Conditionals; Counterfactuals; Square Roots of NOT. Address: Dr. Eduardo Mizraji Sección Biofísica y Biología de Sistemas, Facultad de Ciencias, UdelaR Iguá 4225, Montevideo 11400, Uruguay e-mails: 1) [email protected], 2) [email protected] Phone-Fax: +598 25258629 1 1. Introduction The comprehension and further formalization of the conditionals have a long and complex history, full of controversies, famously described in an article of Lukasiewicz [20].
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Machines
    Universal Machines In his magisterial Introduction to Logic, Paul Herrick (2013) not only guides the reader through a history of symbolic logic, but he also comments on the various links between logic and the history of computation. Aristotle, 384-322 BCE The Square of Opposition “We have seen that Aristotle’s Square of Opposition can be used to compute the truth-value of one statement given the truth-value of another. Mathematicians calls this type of procedure an algorithm… Aristotle’s Square of Opposition was the first large-scale, general-purpose algorithm in the history of logic. This might help explain why the first person in history to design a mechanical computer was an Aristotelian logician…” “Inspired by Aristotle’s Square of Opposition, Raymond Lull (1232-1315), a medieval logician who was also a Catholic priest, designed a computing machine consisting of two rotating disks, each inscribed with symbols for categorical propositions…” “The disks were aligned in such a way that one could turn a dial and see which statements validly follow from a given statement. Although extremely rudimentary, Lull’s basic idea underlies the modern digital computer...” “For the first time in history, someone had conceived of a machine that takes inputs of a certain sort and then, on the basis of rules of logic, computes an exact answer, which is then read off some other part of the device...” “The first designs in history for machines that compute were designs for mechanical devices that would operate according to the exact laws not of mathematics but of logic” (Herrick 2013: 121-2).
    [Show full text]
  • A New Light on the Nameless Corner of the Square of Oppositions
    New Light on the Square of Oppositions and its Nameless Corner Jean-Yves Béziau Institute of Logic and Semiological Research Center University of Neuchâtel, Espace Louis Agassiz 1 CH - 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland [email protected] Abstract It has been pointed out that there is no primitive name in natural and formal languages for one corner of the famous square of oppositions. We have all, some and no, but no primitive name for not all. It is true also in the modal version of the square, we have necessary, possible and impossible, but no primitive name for not necessary. I shed here a new light on this mysterious non-lexicalisation of the south- east corner of the square of oppositions, the so-called O-corner, by establishing some connections between negations and modalities. The E-corner, impossible, is a paracomplete negation (intuitionistic negation if the underlying modal logic is S4) and the O-corner, not necessary, is a paraconsistent negation. I argue that the three notions of opposition of the square of oppositions (contradiction, contrariety, subcontrariety) correspond to three notions of negation (classical, paracomplete, paraconsistent). We get a better understanding of these relations of opposition in the perspective of Blanché’s hexagon and furthermore in the perspective of a three dimensional object, a stellar dodecahedron of oppositions that I present at the end of the paper. Contents 1.The non lexicalization of the O-corner of the Square of Oppositions 2.Three oppositions and three negations 3.Some controversies about the theory of oppositions 4.The O corner within the Octagon and the Stellar Dodecahedron of Oppositions 5.Conclusions 6.Bibliography 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Traditional Square of Opposition and Generalized Quantifiers
    The traditional square of opposition and generalized quantifiers∗ Dag Westerst˚ahl University of Gothenburg Abstract The traditional square of opposition dates back to Aristotle’s logic and has been intensely discussed ever since, both in medieval and mod- ern times. It presents certain logical relations, or oppositions, that hold between the four quantifiers all, no, not all, and some. Aristotle and tradi- tional logicians, as well as most linguists today, took all to have existential import, so that “All As are B” entails that there are As, whereas modern logic drops this assumption. Replacing Aristotle’s account of all with the modern one (and similarly for not all) results in the modern version of the square, and there has been much recent debate about which of these two squares is the ‘right’ one. My main point in the present paper is that this question is not, or should not primarily be, about existential import, but rather about pat- terns of negation. I argue that the modern square, but not the traditional one, presents a general pattern of negation one finds in natural language. To see this clearly, one needs to apply the square not just to the four Aristotelian quantifiers, but to other generalized quantifiers of that type. Any such quantifier spans a modern square, which exhibits that pattern of negation but, very often, not the oppositions found in the traditional square. I provide some technical results and tools, and illustrate with sev- eral examples of squares based on quantifiers interpreting various English determiners. The final example introduces a second pattern of negation, which occurs with certain complex quantifiers, and which also is repre- sentable in a square.
    [Show full text]
  • Analytic Continuation of Ζ(S) Violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)
    Analytic Continuation of ζ(s) Violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) Ayal Sharon ∗y July 30, 2019 Abstract The Dirichlet series of ζ(s) was long ago proven to be divergent throughout half-plane Re(s) ≤ 1. If also Riemann’s proposition is true, that there exists an "expression" of ζ(s) that is convergent at all s (except at s = 1), then ζ(s) is both divergent and convergent throughout half-plane Re(s) ≤ 1 (except at s = 1). This result violates all three of Aristotle’s "Laws of Thought": the Law of Identity (LOI), the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), and the Law of Non- Contradition (LNC). In classical and intuitionistic logics, the violation of LNC also triggers the "Principle of Explosion" / Ex Contradictione Quodlibet (ECQ). In addition, the Hankel contour used in Riemann’s analytic continuation of ζ(s) violates Cauchy’s integral theorem, providing another proof of the invalidity of Riemann’s ζ(s). Riemann’s ζ(s) is one of the L-functions, which are all in- valid due to analytic continuation. This result renders unsound all theorems (e.g. Modularity, Fermat’s last) and conjectures (e.g. BSD, Tate, Hodge, Yang-Mills) that assume that an L-function (e.g. Riemann’s ζ(s)) is valid. We also show that the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) is not "non-trivially true" in classical logic, intuitionistic logic, or three-valued logics (3VLs) that assign a third truth-value to paradoxes (Bochvar’s 3VL, Priest’s LP ). ∗Patent Examiner, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
    [Show full text]
  • On Two Squares of Opposition: the Leśniewski's Style Formalization Of
    Acta Anal (2013) 28:71–93 DOI 10.1007/s12136-012-0162-4 On Two Squares of Opposition: the Leśniewski’s Style Formalization of Synthetic Propositions Andrew Schumann Received: 31 October 2011 /Accepted: 3 May 2012 /Published online: 15 July 2012 # The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract In the paper we build up the ontology of Leśniewski’s type for formalizing synthetic propositions. We claim that for these propositions an unconventional square of opposition holds, where a, i are contrary, a, o (resp. e, i) are contradictory, e, o are subcontrary, a, e (resp. i, o) are said to stand in the subalternation. Further, we construct a non-Archimedean extension of Boolean algebra and show that in this algebra just two squares of opposition are formalized: conventional and the square that we invented. As a result, we can claim that there are only two basic squares of opposition. All basic constructions of the paper (the new square of opposition, the formalization of synthetic propositions within ontology of Leśniewski’s type, the non-Archimedean explanation of square of opposition) are introduced for the first time. Keywords Synthetic propositions . Non-Archimedean extension of Boolean algebra . Synthetic square of opposition . Synthetic ontology 1 Introduction The square of opposition is one of the main concepts of traditional as well as classical logic. For instance, it fixes the following fundamental relations in classical logic: 1) The duality relation between conjunction and disjunction ðÞðÞ)p ^ q ðÞp _ q , the law of non-contradiction ðÞp ^:p 0 , the law of tertium non datur ðÞp _:p 1 : A.
    [Show full text]