DOCSLIB.ORG

Mathematical Logic. Introduction. by Vilnis Detlovs And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mathematical Logic. Introduction. by Vilnis Detlovs And 1 Version released: May 24, 2017 Introduction to Mathematical Logic Hyper-textbook for students by Vilnis Detlovs, Dr. math., and Karlis Podnieks, Dr. math. University of Latvia This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License and is copyrighted © 2000-2017 by us, Vilnis Detlovs and Karlis Podnieks. Sections 1, 2, 3 of this book represent an extended translation of the corresponding chapters of the book: V. Detlovs, Elements of Mathematical Logic, Riga, University of Latvia, 1964, 252 pp. (in Latvian). With kind permission of Dr. Detlovs. Vilnis Detlovs. Memorial Page In preparation – forever (however, since 2000, used successfully in a real logic course for computer science students). This hyper-textbook contains links to: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; MacTutor History of Mathematics archive of the University of St Andrews; MathWorld of Wolfram Research. 2 Table of Contents References..........................................................................................................3 1. Introduction. What Is Logic, Really?.............................................................4 1.1. Total Formalization is Possible!..............................................................5 1.2. Predicate Languages.............................................................................10 1.3. Axioms of Logic: Minimal System, Constructive System and Classical System..........................................................................................................27 1.4. The Flavor of Proving Directly.............................................................40 1.5. Deduction Theorems.............................................................................43 2. Propositional Logic......................................................................................53 2.1. Proving Formulas Containing Implication only...................................54 2.2. Proving Formulas Containing Conjunction..........................................55 2.3. Proving Formulas Containing Disjunction...........................................57 2.4. Formulas Containing Negation – Minimal Logic.................................59 2.5. Formulas Containing Negation – Constructive Logic..........................64 2.6. Formulas Containing Negation – Classical Logic................................66 2.7. Constructive Embedding. Glivenko's Theorem....................................69 2.8. Axiom Independence. Using Computers in Mathematical Proofs........71 3. Predicate Logic.............................................................................................86 3.1. Proving Formulas Containing Quantifiers and Implication only..........86 3.2. Formulas Containing Negations and a Single Quantifier.....................89 3.3. Proving Formulas Containing Conjunction and Disjunction................98 3.4. Replacement Theorems.........................................................................99 3.5. Constructive Embedding.....................................................................106 4. Completeness Theorems (Model Theory)..................................................115 4.1. Interpretations and Models.................................................................115 4.2. Classical Propositional Logic − Truth Tables.....................................129 4.3. Classical Predicate Logic − Gödel's Completeness Theorem.............138 4.4. Constructive Propositional Logic – Kripke Semantics.......................158 5. Normal Forms. Resolution Method............................................................178 5.1. Prenex Normal Form..........................................................................180 5.2. Skolem Normal Form.........................................................................188 5.3. Conjunctive and Disjunctive Normal Forms......................................193 5.4. Clause Form........................................................................................197 5.5. Resolution Method for Propositional Formulas..................................203 5.6. Herbrand's Theorem............................................................................211 5.7. Resolution Method for Predicate Formulas........................................217 6. Miscellaneous.............................................................................................230 6.1. Negation as Contradiction or Absurdity.............................................230 3 References Hilbert D., Bernays P. [1934] Grundlagen der Mathematik. Vol. I, Berlin, 1934, 471 pp. (Russian translation available) Kleene S.C. [1952] Introduction to Metamathematics. Van Nostrand, 1952 (Russian translation available) Kleene S.C. [1967] Mathematical Logic. John Wiley & Sons, 1967 (Russian translation available) Mendelson E. [1997] Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Fourth Edition. International Thomson Publishing, 1997, 440 pp. (Russian translation available) Podnieks K. [1997] What is Mathematics: Gödel's Theorem and Around. 1997-2015 (available online, Russian version available). 4 1. Introduction. What Is Logic, Really? WARNING! In this book, predicate language is used as a synonym of first order language, formal theory – as a synonym of formal system, deductive system, constructive logic – as a synonym of intuitionistic logic, algorithmically solvable – as a synonym of recursively solvable, algorithmically enumerable – as a synonym of recursively enumerable. What is logic? See also Factasia Logic by Roger Bishop Jones. In a sense, logic represents the most general means of reasoning used by people and computers. Why are means of reasoning important? Because any body of data may contain not only facts visible directly. For example, assume the following data: the date of birth of some person X is January 1, 2000, and yesterday, September 14, 2010 some person Y killed some person Z. Then, most likely, X did not kill Z. This conclusion is not represented in our data directly, but can be derived from it by using some means of reasoning – axioms (“background knowledge”) and rules of inference. For example, one may use the following statement as an axiom: “Most likely, a person of age 10 can´t kill anybody”. There may be means of reasoning of different levels of generality, and of different ranges of applicability. The above “killer axiom” represents the lowest level – it is a very specific statement. But one can use laws of physics to derive conclusions from his/her data. Theories of physics, chemistry, biology etc. represent a more general level of means of reasoning. But can there be means of reasoning applicable in almost every situation? This – the most general – level of means of reasoning is usually regarded as logic. Is logic absolute (i.e. unique, predestined) or relative (i.e. there is more than one kind of logic)? In modern times, an absolutist position is somewhat inconvenient – you must defend your “absolute” concept of logic against heretics and dissidents, but very little can be done to exterminate these people. They may freely publish their concepts on the Internet. So let us better adopt the relativist position, and define logic(s) as any common framework for building theories. For example, the so-called absolute geometry can be viewed as a common logic for both the Euclidean 5 and non-Euclidean geometry. Group axioms serve as a common logic for theories investigating mathematical structures that are subtypes of groups. And, if you decide to rebuild all mathematical theories on your favorite set theory, then you can view set theory as your logic. Can there be a common logic for the entire mathematics? To avoid the absolutist approach let us appreciate all the existing concepts of mathematics – classical (traditional), constructivist (intuitionist), New Foundations etc. Of course, enthusiasts of each of these concepts must propose some specific common framework for building mathematical theories, i.e. some specific kind of logic. And they do. Can set theory (for example, currently, the most popular version of it – Zermelo-Fraenkel's set theory) be viewed as a common logic for the classical (traditional) mathematics? You may think so, if you do not wish to distinguish between the first order notion of natural numbers (i.e. discrete mathematics) and the second order notion (i.e. "continuous" mathematics based on set theory or a subset of it). Or, if you do not wish to investigate in parallel the classical and the constructivist (intuitionist) versions of some theories. 1.1. Total Formalization is Possible! Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914) Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) David Hilbert (1862-1943) How far can we proceed with the mathematical rigor – with the axiomatization of some theory? Complete elimination of intuition, i.e. full reduction of all proofs to a list of axioms and rules of inference, is this really possible? The work by Frege, Peirce, Russell, Hilbert and their colleagues and followers showed how this can be achieved even with the most complicated mathematical theories. All mathematical theories were indeed reduced to systems of axioms and rules of inference without any admixture of sophisticated human skills, intuitions etc. Today, the logical techniques developed by these brilliant people allow ultimate axiomatization of any theory that is based on a stable, self-consistent system of principles (i.e. of any mathematical theory). Total axiomatization is called formalization. Today, we have another, very fundamental reason to formalize our mathematical and non-mathematical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classifying Material Implications Over Minimal Logic
    Classifying Material Implications over Minimal Logic Hannes Diener and Maarten McKubre-Jordens March 28, 2018 Abstract The so-called paradoxes of material implication have motivated the development of many non- classical logics over the years [2–5, 11]. In this note, we investigate some of these paradoxes and classify them, over minimal logic. We provide proofs of equivalence and semantic models separating the paradoxes where appropriate. A number of equivalent groups arise, all of which collapse with unrestricted use of double negation elimination. Interestingly, the principle ex falso quodlibet, and several weaker principles, turn out to be distinguishable, giving perhaps supporting motivation for adopting minimal logic as the ambient logic for reasoning in the possible presence of inconsistency. Keywords: reverse mathematics; minimal logic; ex falso quodlibet; implication; paraconsistent logic; Peirce’s principle. 1 Introduction The project of constructive reverse mathematics [6] has given rise to a wide literature where various the- orems of mathematics and principles of logic have been classified over intuitionistic logic. What is less well-known is that the subtle difference that arises when the principle of explosion, ex falso quodlibet, is dropped from intuitionistic logic (thus giving (Johansson’s) minimal logic) enables the distinction of many more principles. The focus of the present paper are a range of principles known collectively (but not exhaustively) as the paradoxes of material implication; paradoxes because they illustrate that the usual interpretation of formal statements of the form “. → . .” as informal statements of the form “if. then. ” produces counter-intuitive results. Some of these principles were hinted at in [9]. Here we present a carefully worked-out chart, classifying a number of such principles over minimal logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Automating Free Logic in HOL, with an Experimental Application in Category Theory
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Automating Free Logic in HOL, with an Experimental Application in Category Theory Christoph Benzm¨uller and Dana S. Scott Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract A shallow semantical embedding of free logic in classical higher- order logic is presented, which enables the off-the-shelf application of higher- order interactive and automated theorem provers for the formalisation and verification of free logic theories. Subsequently, this approach is applied to a selected domain of mathematics: starting from a generalization of the standard axioms for a monoid we present a stepwise development of various, mutually equivalent foundational axiom systems for category theory. As a side-effect of this work some (minor) issues in a prominent category theory textbook have been revealed. The purpose of this article is not to claim any novel results in category the- ory, but to demonstrate an elegant way to “implement” and utilize interactive and automated reasoning in free logic, and to present illustrative experiments. Keywords Free Logic · Classical Higher-Order Logic · Category Theory · Interactive and Automated Theorem Proving 1 Introduction Partiality and undefinedness are prominent challenges in various areas of math- ematics and computer science. Unfortunately, however, modern proof assistant systems and automated theorem provers based on traditional classical or intu- itionistic logics provide rather inadequate support for these challenge concepts. Free logic [24,25,30,32] offers a theoretically appealing solution, but it has been considered as rather unsuited towards practical utilization. Christoph Benzm¨uller Freie Universit¨at Berlin, Berlin, Germany & University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg E-mail: [email protected] Dana S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Modal Logic of Potential Infinity, with an Application to Free Choice
    The Modal Logic of Potential Infinity, With an Application to Free Choice Sequences Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ethan Brauer, B.A. ∼6 6 Graduate Program in Philosophy The Ohio State University 2020 Dissertation Committee: Professor Stewart Shapiro, Co-adviser Professor Neil Tennant, Co-adviser Professor Chris Miller Professor Chris Pincock c Ethan Brauer, 2020 Abstract This dissertation is a study of potential infinity in mathematics and its contrast with actual infinity. Roughly, an actual infinity is a completed infinite totality. By contrast, a collection is potentially infinite when it is possible to expand it beyond any finite limit, despite not being a completed, actual infinite totality. The concept of potential infinity thus involves a notion of possibility. On this basis, recent progress has been made in giving an account of potential infinity using the resources of modal logic. Part I of this dissertation studies what the right modal logic is for reasoning about potential infinity. I begin Part I by rehearsing an argument|which is due to Linnebo and which I partially endorse|that the right modal logic is S4.2. Under this assumption, Linnebo has shown that a natural translation of non-modal first-order logic into modal first- order logic is sound and faithful. I argue that for the philosophical purposes at stake, the modal logic in question should be free and extend Linnebo's result to this setting. I then identify a limitation to the argument for S4.2 being the right modal logic for potential infinity.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimal Logic and Automated Proof Verification
    Minimal Logic and Automated Proof Verification Louis Warren A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Canterbury New Zealand 2019 Abstract We implement natural deduction for first order minimal logic in Agda, and verify minimal logic proofs and natural deduction properties in the resulting proof system. We study the implications of adding the drinker paradox and other formula schemata to minimal logic. We show first that these principles are independent of the law of excluded middle and of each other, and second how these schemata relate to other well-known principles, such as Markov’s Principle of unbounded search, providing proofs and semantic models where appropriate. We show that Bishop’s constructive analysis can be adapted to minimal logic. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Hannes Diener and Maarten McKubre-Jordens for their wonderful supervision. Their encouragement and guidance was the primary reason why my studies have been an enjoyable and relatively non-stressful experience. I am thankful for their suggestions and advice, and that they encouraged me to also pursue the questions I found interesting. Thanks also to Douglas Bridges, whose lectures inspired my interest in logic. I cannot imagine a better foundation for a constructivist. I am grateful to the University of Canterbury for funding my research, to CORCON for funding my secondments, and to my hosts Helmut Schwichtenberg in Munich, Ulrich Berger and Monika Seisenberger in Swansea, and Milly Maietti and Giovanni Sambin in Padua. This thesis is dedicated to Bertrand and Hester Warren, to whom I express my deepest gratitude.
    [Show full text]
  • The Broadest Necessity
    The Broadest Necessity Andrew Bacon∗ July 25, 2017 Abstract In this paper we explore the logic of broad necessity. Definitions of what it means for one modality to be broader than another are formulated, and we prove, in the context of higher-order logic, that there is a broadest necessity, settling one of the central questions of this investigation. We show, moreover, that it is possible to give a reductive analysis of this necessity in extensional language (using truth functional connectives and quantifiers). This relates more generally to a conjecture that it is not possible to define intensional connectives from extensional notions. We formulate this conjecture precisely in higher-order logic, and examine concrete cases in which it fails. We end by investigating the logic of broad necessity. It is shown that the logic of broad necessity is a normal modal logic between S4 and Triv, and that it is consistent with a natural axiomatic system of higher-order logic that it is exactly S4. We give some philosophical reasons to think that the logic of broad necessity does not include the S5 principle. 1 Say that a necessity operator, 21, is as broad as another, 22, if and only if: (*) 23(21P ! 22P ) whenever 23 is a necessity operator, and P is a proposition. Here I am quantifying both into the position that an operator occupies, and the position that a sentence occupies. We shall give details of the exact syntax of the language we are theorizing in shortly: at this point, we note that it is a language that contains operator variables, sentential variables, and that one can accordingly quantify into sentence and operator position.
    [Show full text]
  • Existence and Reference in Medieval Logic
    GYULA KLIMA EXISTENCE AND REFERENCE IN MEDIEVAL LOGIC 1. Introduction: Existential Assumptions in Modern vs. Medieval Logic “The expression ‘free logic’ is an abbreviation for the phrase ‘free of existence assumptions with respect to its terms, general and singular’.”1 Classical quantification theory is not a free logic in this sense, as its standard formulations commonly assume that every singular term in every model is assigned a referent, an element of the universe of discourse. Indeed, since singular terms include not only singular constants, but also variables2, standard quantification theory may be regarded as involving even the assumption of the existence of the values of its variables, in accordance with Quine’s famous dictum: “to be is to be the value of a variable”.3 But according to some modern interpretations of Aristotelian syllogistic, Aristotle’s theory would involve an even stronger existential assumption, not shared by quantification theory, namely, the assumption of the non-emptiness of common terms.4 Indeed, the need for such an assumption seems to be supported not only by a number of syllogistic forms, which without this assumption appear to be invalid, but also by the doctrine of Aristotle’s De Interpretatione concerning the logical relationships among categorical propositions, commonly summarized in the Square of Opposition. For example, Aristotle’s theory states that universal affirmative propositions imply particular affirmative propositions. But if we formalize such propositions in quantification theory, we get formulae between which the corresponding implication does not hold. So, evidently, there is some discrepancy between the ways Aristotle and quantification theory interpret these categoricals.
    [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]
  • Mathematical Logic, an Introduction
    Mathematical Logic, an Introduction by Peter Koepke Bonn, Winter 2019/20 Wann sollte die Mathematik je zu einem Anfang gelangen, wenn sie warten wollte, bis die Philosophie über unsere Grundbegrie zur Klarheit und Einmüthigkeit gekommen ist? Unsere einzige Rettung ist der formalistische Standpunkt, undenirte Begrie (wie Zahl, Punkt, Ding, Menge) an die Spitze zu stellen, um deren actuelle oder psychologische oder anschauliche Bedeutung wir uns nicht kümmern, und ebenso unbewiesene Sätze (Axiome), deren actuelle Richtigkeit uns nichts angeht. Aus diesen primitiven Begrien und Urtheilen gewinnen wir durch Denition und Deduction andere, und nur diese Ableitung ist unser Werk und Ziel. (Felix Hausdor, 12. Januar 1918) Table of contents 1 Introduction . 4 I First-order Logic and the Gödel Completeness Theorem . 4 2 The Syntax of rst-order logic: Symbols, words, and formulas . 4 2.1 Motivation: a mathematical statement . 5 2.2 Symbols . 5 2.3 Words . 6 2.4 Terms . 7 2.5 Formulas . 8 3 Semantics . 9 4 The satisfaction relation . 11 5 Logical implication and propositional connectives . 14 6 Substitution and term rules . 15 7 A sequent calculus . 20 8 Derivable sequent rules . 22 8.1 Auxiliary derived rules . 22 8.2 Introduction and elimination of ; ; ::: . 23 8.3 Formal proofs about . ._. .^. 24 9 Consistency . 25 1 2 Section 10 Term models and Henkin sets . 27 11 Constructing Henkin sets . 30 12 The completeness theorem . 34 13 The compactness theorem . 35 II Herbrand's Theorem and Automatic Theorem Proving . 38 14 Normal forms . 38 14.1 Negation normal form . 39 14.2 Conjunctive and disjunctive normal form .
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Mathematical Logic from Russell to Tarski: 1900–1935
    The Development of Mathematical Logic from Russell to Tarski: 1900–1935 Paolo Mancosu Richard Zach Calixto Badesa The Development of Mathematical Logic from Russell to Tarski: 1900–1935 Paolo Mancosu (University of California, Berkeley) Richard Zach (University of Calgary) Calixto Badesa (Universitat de Barcelona) Final Draft—May 2004 To appear in: Leila Haaparanta, ed., The Development of Modern Logic. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004 Contents Contents i Introduction 1 1 Itinerary I: Metatheoretical Properties of Axiomatic Systems 3 1.1 Introduction . 3 1.2 Peano’s school on the logical structure of theories . 4 1.3 Hilbert on axiomatization . 8 1.4 Completeness and categoricity in the work of Veblen and Huntington . 10 1.5 Truth in a structure . 12 2 Itinerary II: Bertrand Russell’s Mathematical Logic 15 2.1 From the Paris congress to the Principles of Mathematics 1900–1903 . 15 2.2 Russell and Poincar´e on predicativity . 19 2.3 On Denoting . 21 2.4 Russell’s ramified type theory . 22 2.5 The logic of Principia ......................... 25 2.6 Further developments . 26 3 Itinerary III: Zermelo’s Axiomatization of Set Theory and Re- lated Foundational Issues 29 3.1 The debate on the axiom of choice . 29 3.2 Zermelo’s axiomatization of set theory . 32 3.3 The discussion on the notion of “definit” . 35 3.4 Metatheoretical studies of Zermelo’s axiomatization . 38 4 Itinerary IV: The Theory of Relatives and Lowenheim’s¨ Theorem 41 4.1 Theory of relatives and model theory . 41 4.2 The logic of relatives .
    [Show full text]
  • Existence and Identity in Free Logic: a Problem for Inferentialism?
    Existence and Identity in Free Logic: A Problem for Inferentialism? Abstract Peter Milne (2007) poses two challenges to the inferential theorist of meaning. This study responds to both. First, it argues that the method of natural deduction idealizes the essential details of correct informal deductive reasoning. Secondly, it explains how rules of inference in free logic can determine unique senses for the existential quantifier and the identity predicate. The final part of the investigation brings out an underlying order in a basic family of free logics. 1. Background 1.1 Free v. unfree logic Standard, unfree logic has among its rules of natural deduction the following (see, for example, the system in the classic monograph Prawitz 1965). : ϕ where a does not occur in any Universal Introduction (∀-I) assumption on which ϕ depends a ∀xϕ x Universal Elimination (∀-E) ∀xϕ x ϕ t x Existential Introduction (∃-I) ϕ t ∃xϕ (i) x ϕ a where a does not occur in ∃xϕ, or in ψ, x Existential Elimination (∃-E) : or in any assumption, other than ϕ a, on ∃xϕ ψ (i) which the upper occurrence of ψ depends ψ Reflexivity of identity t=t Substitutivity of identity t=u ϕ (t) ϕ(u) Let t be any term, not necessarily closed. Then ∃!t is short for ∃x x=t, where x is alphabetically the first variable not free in t. In unfree logic we have, for every closed term t, – ∃!t. We also have – ∃x x=x. So unfree logic is committed to a denotation for every closed term, and to the existence of at least one thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Metamathematics in Coq Metamathematica in Coq (Met Een Samenvatting in Het Nederlands)
    Metamathematics in Coq Metamathematica in Coq (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. dr. W.H. Gispen, ingevolge het besluit van het College voor Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 31 oktober 2003 des middags te 14:30 uur door Roger Dimitri Alexander Hendriks geboren op 6 augustus 1973 te IJsselstein. Promotoren: Prof. dr. J.A. Bergstra (Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte, Universiteit Utrecht) Prof. dr. M.A. Bezem (Institutt for Informatikk, Universitetet i Bergen) Voor Nelleke en Ole. Preface The ultimate arbiter of correctness is formalisability. It is a widespread view amongst mathematicians that correct proofs can be written out completely for- mally. This means that, after ‘unfolding’ the layers of abbreviations and con- ventions on which the presentation of a mathematical proof usually depends, the validity of every inference step should be completely perspicuous by a pre- sentation of this step in an appropriate formal language. When descending from the informal heat to the formal cold,1 we can rely less on intuition and more on formal rules. Once we have convinced ourselves that those rules are sound, we are ready to believe that the derivations they accept are correct. Formalis- ing reduces the reliability of a proof to the reliability of the means of verifying it ([60]). Formalising is more than just filling-in the details, it is a creative and chal- lenging job. It forces one to make decisions that informal presentations often leave unspecified. The search for formal definitions that, on the one hand, con- vincingly represent the concepts involved and, on the other hand, are convenient for formal proof, often elucidates the informal presentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems for Temporary Existence in Tense Logic Meghan Sullivan* Notre Dame
    Philosophy Compass 7/1 (2012): 43–57, 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00457.x Problems for Temporary Existence in Tense Logic Meghan Sullivan* Notre Dame Abstract A-theorists of time postulate a deep distinction between the present, past and future. Settling on an appropriate logic for such a view is no easy matter. This Philosophy Compass article describes one of the most vexing formal problems facing A-theorists. It is commonly thought that A-theo- ries can only be formally expressed in a tense logic: a logic with operators like P (‘‘it was the case that’’) and F (‘‘it will be the case that’’). And it seems natural to think that we live in a world where objects come to exist and cease to exist as time passes. Indeed, this is typically a key component of the most prominent kind of A-theory, presentism. But the temporary existence assumption cannot be upheld in any tense logic with a standard quantification theory. I will explain the problem and outline the philosophical and logical considerations that generate it. I will then consider two possible solutions to the problem – one that targets our logic of quantification and one that targets our assumptions about change. I survey the costs of each solution. 1. Univocal Existence and Temporary Existence Metaphysicians should be applauded when they make efforts to be sensible. Here are two particular convictions about existence and change that seem worthy of defense: UNIVOCAL EXISTENCE: There is just one way that objects exist; and TEMPORARY EXISTENCE: Some objects came to exist or will cease to exist.
    [Show full text]