DOCSLIB.ORG

Leśniewski's Systems of Logic and Mereology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies Legacy Theses 2008 Leśniewski’s Systems of Logic and Mereology; History and Re-evaluation. Urbaniak, Rafal Urbaniak, R. (2008). Leśniewski’s Systems of Logic and Mereology; History and Re-evaluation. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/15194 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/46697 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Le´sniewski’s Systems of Logic and Mereology; History and Re-evaluation. by Rafal Urbaniak A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY CALGARY, ALBERTA April, 2008 �c Rafal Urbaniak 2008 The author of this thesis has granted the University of Calgary a non-exclusive license to reproduce and distribute copies of this thesis to users of the University of Calgary Archives. Copyright remains with the author. Theses and dissertations available in the University of Calgary Institutional Repository are solely for the purpose of private study and research. They may not be copied or reproduced, except as permitted by copyright laws, without written authority of the copyright owner. Any commercial use or publication is strictly prohibited. The original Partial Copyright License attesting to these terms and signed by the author of this thesis may be found in the original print version of the thesis, held by the University of Calgary Archives. The thesis approval page signed by the examining committee may also be found in the original print version of the thesis held in the University of Calgary Archives. Please contact the University of Calgary Archives for further information, E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: (403) 220-7271 Website: http://www.ucalgary.ca/archives/ Abstract Stanis�law Le´sniewski (1886–1939) developed his system of foundations of mathematics as an alternative to the system of Principia Mathematica. He constructed three systems: Protothetic, which is his version of a generalized propositional calculus, his own logic of predication called Ontology, and a theory of parthood called Mereology. The first part (chapters 1–5) is historical. Chapter 1 contains a brief biography of Le´sniewski and a short guide to primary sources. Chapter 2 is devoted to a detailed discussion of Le´sniewski’s views on the philosophical problems he wrote about. These include existential propositions, principles of contradiction and excluded middle, the eter­ nity of truth, existence of universals, and certain paradoxes (most importantly, Russell’s paradox). Chapters 3–5 are concerned with a fairly detailed presentation of Le´sniewski’s systems in a modern framework. Each of them is provided with a guide to secondary literature. The second part (chapters 6 and 7) is more theoretical. In chapter 6 Le´sniewski’s and Sobocin´ski’s (Sobocinski´ 1949b) solution of Russell’s paradox is studied and argued to be unsuccessful. Next, a strengthening of Mereology (S�lupecki 1958) that was meant to improve the situation is discussed and difficulties that it copes with are indicated. In chapter 7 a modal factor to provide a nominalist semantics for a language very similar to that of Elementary Ontology is introduced. The idea here is that higher-order quan­ tification ranges over ‘ways names could be’. A Kripkean semantics is provided which is intended to capture that notion and prove that the system thus obtained is equivalent to its standard set-theoretic version. Certain philosophical issues surrounding this approach are discussed. ii Table of Contents Abstract . ii Table of Contents . iii Introduction . 1 Part I. Historical aspects 9 1 Stanis�law Le´sniewski: life and work . 10 1.1 Life and philosophical development . 10 1.2 Primary sources . 15 2 Le´sniewski’s early philosophical views . 19 2.1 Introduction . 19 2.2 Linguistic conventions . 20 2.3 Existential propositions . 32 2.4 The principle of contradiction . 37 2.5 The principle of excluded middle . 39 2.6 Eternity of truth . 42 2.7 Paradoxes . 53 2.7.1 The Nelson-Grelling paradox . 53 2.7.2 Meinong’s paradox . 54 2.7.3 Epimenides’ paradox (Liar) . 56 2.7.4 Russell’s paradox . 59 2.8 On universals . 65 2.9 Further readings . 68 3 Le´sniewski’s Protothetic . 71 3.1 Introduction . 71 3.2 Semantic categories . 74 3.3 Le´sniewski’s notation . 77 3.4 Remarks on Protothetic . 83 3.5 Axiomatic formulations . 92 3.6 (Annotated) further readings . 99 4 Le´sniewski’s Ontology . 105 4.1 Ontology — basic intuitions . 105 4.2 The language of Ontology . 107 4.3 The axiomatic system . 109 4.4 Some definitions . 111 4.5 Against universals . 114 4.6 Le´sniewski’s original style of presentation . 118 4.7 (Annotated) further readings . 132 5 Le´sniewski’s Mereology . 140 5.1 Why Mereology? . 140 5.2 Axiomatizations . 148 iii iv 5.2.1 1916 axiomatization . 149 5.2.2 1918 axiomatization . 152 5.2.3 1920 axiomatization . 154 5.2.4 1921 axiomatization . 155 5.2.5 Some other necessary and sufficient conditions of being a class . 157 5.3 Mereology as a replacement for Set Theory . 158 5.4 (Annotated) further readings . 169 Part II. Re-evaluation (sets and ontological commitment) 175 6 Le´sniewski’s approach to Russell’s paradox and set theory . 176 6.1 The problem . 176 6.2 Mereological classes . 179 6.3 Distributive classes . 184 6.4 Some more difficulties . 186 6.5 Proof sketches . 188 6.6 Higher-order epsilon . 193 6.6.1 What is higher-order epsilon? . 193 6.6.2 HO " and Russell’s paradox (outlined) . 197 6.6.3 HO " and Russell’s paradox (technically speaking) . 198 6.7 S�lupecki’s generalized mereology . 206 6.7.1 System M . 206 6.7.2 Difficulties . 211 7 Modal interpretation of plural quantifiers . 214 7.1 Introduction . 214 7.2 Quantified name logic . 216 7.2.1 The language . 216 7.2.2 Set-theoretic semantics . 218 7.2.3 QNL " and Boolos’ logic of plurals . 219 7.3 Plural quantification and ontological commitment . 227 7.4 A modal alternative . 242 7.4.1 Simons on combinatorial semantics . 242 7.4.2 Rickey’s natural models . 247 7.4.3 Kripke semantics for QNL " . 249 7.4.4 Modal logic of naming . 257 7.4.5 Remarks . 259 7.4.6 Summary of the chapter . 271 Introduction The Lvov-Warsaw school of logic and analytic philosophy was one of the most important schools of philosophical thought in twentieth century. In early 1910s its members already discussed the validity of the principles of excluded middle and contradiction. Among ideas developed in this school one might count Luk� asiewicz’s view that contradictions may be believed to be true and that certain sentences can be neither true nor false which led to the construction of his three-valued logic, Ajdukiewicz’s conventionalism about meaning and his formal work on definitions (it seems that it was Ajdukiewicz who first put forward the consistency, translatability and non-creativity conditions on definitions), Ja´skowski’s approach to natural deduction and his work on discussive logics, Lindenbaum’s lemma on maximally consistent sets of formulas, Presburger’s work on arithmetic, Kotarbinski´ semantical reism, and Tarski’s work on formal semantics and truth, just to give a few examples. One of the representatives of this school was Stanis�law Le´sniewski (1886–1939) (Alfred Tarski, whose importance in twentieth century logic it is hard to overestimate, was his only PhD student). Le´sniewski developed his system of foundations of mathematics as an alternative to the system of Principia Mathematica. He constructed three systems: Protothetic, which is his version of a generalized propositional calculus, his own logic of predication called Ontology, and a theory of parthood called Mereology. Le´sniewski’s work is interesting for a few reasons. • If one is interested in history of logic in general, it is hard to deny that Le´sniewski was one of the key figures in one of the most important schools of logic in twentieth century, who also seriously tried to develop an alternative to the system of Principia Mathematica, and hence he is worth studying in his own right. 1 2 • If one is interested in the development of Tarski’s thought it might be useful to learn what his PhD supervisor’s views were and how Le´sniewski’s work and Tarski’s ideas are (or are not) related. • Philosophical discussions in which Le´sniewski participated pertained to issues which are discussed quite lively even today: his approach to semantical and set-theoretic paradoxes and his views on the validity of the principle of excluded middle and of the principle of contradiction are quite interesting philosophically. • Le´sniewski was a nominalist and his systems were a nominalistic attempt to provide a system of foundations of mathematics. It is a major attempt of this sort and as such is worth an examination. • His metalogic is also quite specific. Nominalist as he was, he wanted to develop a purely inscriptional syntactic description of his systems in a way that did not make any reference to expression types. It is interesting to see how he proceeded and whether this approach works. • His logical systems are also interesting in their own right.
Recommended publications
  • Automating Free Logic in HOL, with an Experimental Application in Category Theory

    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.
  • Mathematical Logic. Introduction. by Vilnis Detlovs And

    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
  • The Modal Logic of Potential Infinity, with an Application to Free Choice

    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.
  • Selected Bibliography of and About Tadeusz Kotarbinski

    Selected Bibliography of and About Tadeusz Kotarbinski

    Selected bibliography of and about Tadeusz Kotarbinski https://www.ontology.co/biblio/kotarbinski-biblio.htm Theory and History of Ontology by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: [email protected] Selected Bibliography on Kotarbinski's Reism and Semantical Concretism A SELECTION OF WORKS BY KOTARBINSKI N.B. Works avalaible only in Polish are not enclosed. 1. Kotarbinski, Tadeusz. 1931. "Le Réalisme Radical." In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Philosophy, Held at Oxford, England, September 1-6, 1930, edited by Ryle, Gilbert, 488-500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2. ———. 1935. "The Development of the Main Problem in the Methodology of Francis Bacon." Studia Philosophica no. 1:107-117. 3. ———. 1955. "The Fundamental Ideas of Pansomatism." Mind no. 64:488-500. Originally published in Polish in 1935. 4. ———. 1956. "La Logique En Pologne." Études Philosophiques no. 11:231-241. Reprinted in. Raymond Klibansky (ed.) - Philosophy in the Mid-Century. A survey - Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1958 pp. 44-52. 5. ———. 1958. "Jan Lukasiewicz's Works on the History of Logic." Studia Logica no. 8:57-62. 6. ———. 1960. "The Concept of Action." Journal of Philosophy no. 57:215-221. 7. ———. 1961. "The Property of a Good Plan." Methodos no. 13:189-201. 8. ———. 1961. "Postulates for Economic Modes of Action." Methodos no. 13:175-188. 9. ———. 1961. "The Aspiration of Praxologists." Methodos no. 13:163-174. 10. ———. 1964. Leçons Sur L'histoire De La Logique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Original Polish edition 1957. Translated by Anna Posner and with an introduction by René Poirier 11. ———. 1965. Praxiology. An Introduction to the Sciences of Efficient Action.
  • Master of Science in Advanced Mathematics and Mathematical Engineering

    Master of Science in Advanced Mathematics and Mathematical Engineering

    Master of Science in Advanced Mathematics and Mathematical Engineering Title: Logic and proof assistants Author: Tomás Martínez Coronado Advisor: Enric Ventura Capell Department: Matemàtiques Academic year: 2015 - 2016 An introduction to Homotopy Type Theory Tom´asMart´ınezCoronado June 26, 2016 Chapter 1 Introduction We give a short introduction first to the philosophical motivation of Intuitionistic Type Theories such as the one presented in this text, and then we give some considerations about this text and the structure we have followed. Philosophy It is hard to overestimate the impact of the problem of Foundations of Mathematics in 20th century philos- ophy. For instance, arguably the most influential thinker in the last century, Ludwig Wittgenstein, began its philosophical career inspired by the works of Frege and Russell on the subject |although, to be fair, he quickly changed his mind and quit working about it. Mathematics have been seen, through History, as the paradigma of absolute knowledge: Locke, in his Essay concerning Human Understanding, had already stated that Mathematics and Theology (sic!) didn't suffer the epistemological problems of empirical sciences: they were, each one in its very own way, provable knowledge. But neither Mathematics nor Theology had a good time trying to explain its own inconsistencies in the second half of the 19th century, the latter due in particular to the works of Charles Darwin. The problem of the Foundations of Mathematics had been the elephant in the room for quite a long time: the necessity of relying on axioms and so-called \evidences" in order to state the invulnerability of the Mathematical system had already been criticized by William Frend in the late 18th century, and the incredible Mathematical works of the 19th century, the arrival of new geometries which were \as consistent as Euclidean geometry", and a bunch of well-known paradoxes derived of the misuse of the concept of infinity had shown the necessity of constructing a logical structure complete enough to sustain the entire Mathematical building.
  • Existence and Reference in Medieval Logic

    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.
  • Types, Sets and Categories

    Types, Sets and Categories

    TYPES, SETS AND CATEGORIES John L. Bell This essay is an attempt to sketch the evolution of type theory from its begin- nings early in the last century to the present day. Central to the development of the type concept has been its close relationship with set theory to begin with and later its even more intimate relationship with category theory. Since it is effectively impossible to describe these relationships (especially in regard to the latter) with any pretensions to completeness within the space of a comparatively short article, I have elected to offer detailed technical presentations of just a few important instances. 1 THE ORIGINS OF TYPE THEORY The roots of type theory lie in set theory, to be precise, in Bertrand Russell’s efforts to resolve the paradoxes besetting set theory at the end of the 19th century. In analyzing these paradoxes Russell had come to find the set, or class, concept itself philosophically perplexing, and the theory of types can be seen as the outcome of his struggle to resolve these perplexities. But at first he seems to have regarded type theory as little more than a faute de mieux. In June 1901 Russell learned of the set-theoretic paradox, known to Cantor by 1899, that issued from applying the latter’s theorem concerning power sets to the class V of all sets. According to that theorem the class of all subclasses of V would, impossibly, have to possess a cardinality exceeding that of V . This stimulated Russell to formulate the paradox that came to bear his name (although it was independently discovered by Zermelo at about the same time) concerning the class of all classes not containing themselves (or predicates not predicable of themselves).
  • Saving the Square of Opposition∗

    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
  • The Development of Mathematical Logic from Russell to Tarski: 1900–1935

    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 .
  • Principle of Acquaintance and Axiom of Reducibility

    Principle of Acquaintance and Axiom of Reducibility

    Principle of acquaintance and axiom of reducibility Brice Halimi Université Paris Nanterre 15 mars 2018 Russell-the-epistemologist is the founding father of the concept of acquaintance. In this talk, I would like to show that Russell’s theory of knowledge is not simply the next step following his logic, but that his logic (especially the system of Principia Mathematica) can also be understood as the formal underpinning of a theory of knowledge. So there is a concept of acquaintance for Russell-the-logician as well. Principia Mathematica’s logical types In Principia, Russell gives the following examples of first-order propositional functions of individuals: φx; (x; y); (y) (x; y);::: Then, introducing φ!zb as a variable first-order propositional function of one individual, he gives examples of second-order propositional functions: f (φ!zb); g(φ!zb; !zb); F(φ!zb; x); (x) F(φ!zb; x); (φ) g(φ!zb; !zb); (φ) F(φ!zb; x);::: Then f !(φb!zb) is introduced as a variable second-order propositional function of one first-order propositional function. And so on. A possible value of f !(φb!zb) is . φ!a. (Example given by Russell.) This has to do with the fact that Principia’s schematic letters are variables: It will be seen that “φ!x” is itself a function of two variables, namely φ!zb and x. [. ] (Principia, p. 51) And variables are understood substitutionally (see Kevin Klement, “Russell on Ontological Fundamentality and Existence”, 2017). This explains that the language of Principia does not constitute an autonomous formal language.
  • INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS

    INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS

    INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS Volume 173 Robert Ginsberg Founding Editor Peter A. Redpath Executive Editor Associate Editors G. John M. Abbarno Matti Häyry Mary-Rose Barral Steven V. Hicks Gerhold K. Becker Richard T. Hull Raymond Angelo Belliotti Mark Letteri Kenneth A. Bryson Vincent L. Luizzi C. Stephen Byrum Alan Milchman H. G. Callaway George David Miller Robert A. Delfino Alan Rosenberg Rem B. Edwards Arleen L. F. Salles Andrew Fitz-Gibbon John R. Shook Francesc Forn i Argimon Eddy Souffrant William Gay Tuija Takala Dane R. Gordon Anne Waters J. Everet Green John R. Welch Heta Aleksandra Gylling Thomas F. Woods a volume in Cognitive Science CS Francesc Forn i Argimon, Editor INTENTIONALITY Past and Future Edited by Gábor Forrai and George Kampis Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005 Cover Design: Studio Pollmann The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 90-420-1817-8 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005 Printed in the Netherlands CONTENTS Preface vii List of Abbreviations ix ONE The Necessity and Nature of Mental Content 1 LAIRD ADDIS TWO Reading Brentano on the Intentionality of the Mental 15 PHILIP J. BARTOK THREE Emotions, Moods, and Intentionality 25 WILLIAM FISH FOUR Lockean Ideas as Intentional Contents 37 GÁBOR FORRAI FIVE Normativity and Mental Content 51 JUSSI HAUKIOJA SIX The Ontological and Intentional Status of Fregean Senses: An Early Account of External Content 63 GREG JESSON
  • Self-Similarity in the Foundations

    Self-Similarity in the Foundations

    Self-similarity in the Foundations Paul K. Gorbow Thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D. in Logic, defended on June 14, 2018. Supervisors: Ali Enayat (primary) Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine (secondary) Zachiri McKenzie (secondary) University of Gothenburg Department of Philosophy, Linguistics, and Theory of Science Box 200, 405 30 GOTEBORG,¨ Sweden arXiv:1806.11310v1 [math.LO] 29 Jun 2018 2 Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Introductiontoageneralaudience . ..... 5 1.2 Introduction for logicians . .. 7 2 Tour of the theories considered 11 2.1 PowerKripke-Plateksettheory . .... 11 2.2 Stratifiedsettheory ................................ .. 13 2.3 Categorical semantics and algebraic set theory . ....... 17 3 Motivation 19 3.1 Motivation behind research on embeddings between models of set theory. 19 3.2 Motivation behind stratified algebraic set theory . ...... 20 4 Logic, set theory and non-standard models 23 4.1 Basiclogicandmodeltheory ............................ 23 4.2 Ordertheoryandcategorytheory. ...... 26 4.3 PowerKripke-Plateksettheory . .... 28 4.4 First-order logic and partial satisfaction relations internal to KPP ........ 32 4.5 Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and G¨odel-Bernays class theory............ 36 4.6 Non-standardmodelsofsettheory . ..... 38 5 Embeddings between models of set theory 47 5.1 Iterated ultrapowers with special self-embeddings . ......... 47 5.2 Embeddingsbetweenmodelsofsettheory . ..... 57 5.3 Characterizations.................................. .. 66 6 Stratified set theory and categorical semantics 73 6.1 Stratifiedsettheoryandclasstheory . ...... 73 6.2 Categoricalsemantics ............................... .. 77 7 Stratified algebraic set theory 85 7.1 Stratifiedcategoriesofclasses . ..... 85 7.2 Interpretation of the Set-theories in the Cat-theories ................ 90 7.3 ThesubtoposofstronglyCantorianobjects . ....... 99 8 Where to go from here? 103 8.1 Category theoretic approach to embeddings between models of settheory .