Search

In the following the details of a state-of-affairs semantics for positive free logic are worked out, based on the models of common inner domain–outer domain semantics. Lambert's PFL system is proven to be weakly adequate (i.e., sound and complete) with respect to that semantics by demonstrating that the concept of logical truth definable therein coincides with that one of common truth-value semantics for PFL. Furthermore, this state-of-affairs semantics resists the challenges stemming from the slingshot argument since logically equivalent statements do not always have the same extension according to it. Finally, it is argued that in such a semantics all statements of a certain language for PFL are state-of-affairs-related extensional as well as salva extensione extensional, even though their salva veritate extensionality fails.

In this paper the view is developed that classes should not be understood as individuals, but, rather, as “classes as many” of individuals. To correlate classes with individuals “labelling” and “colabelling” functions are introduced and sets identified with a certain subdomain of the classes on which the labelling and colabelling functions are mutually inverse. A minimal axiomatization of the resulting system is formulated and some of its extensions are related to various systems of set theory, including nonwellfounded set theories.

This paper presents a bivalent extensional semantics for positive free logic without resorting to the philosophically questionable device of using models endowed with a separate domain of “non-existing” objects. The models here introduced have only one (possibly empty) domain, and a partial reference function for the singular terms (that might be undefined at some arguments). Such an approach provides a solution to an open problem put forward by Lambert, and can be viewed as supplying a version of parametrized truth non unlike the notion of “truth at world” found in modal logic. A model theory is developed, establishing compactness, interpolation (implying a strong form of Beth definability), and completeness (with respect to a particular axiomatization).

The totality of extensional 1-ary connectives distinguishable in a logical framework allowing sequents with multiple or empty (alongside singleton) succedents form a lattice under a natural partial ordering relating one connective to another if all the inferential properties of the former are possessed by the latter. Here we give a complete description of that lattice; its Hasse diagram appears as Figure 1 in §2. Simple syntactic descriptions of the lattice elements are provided in §3; §§4 and 5 give some additional remarks on matrix methods and on alternative terminology. Background: The size of this lattice was underestimated in [3]; some missing cases were noted in [4] in the course of correcting an example from [3] purporting to show the non-distributivity of the lattice. All the ‘missing cases’ (as well as those originally noted) are covered here. (The present discussion is self-contained.)

The problem with model-theoretic modal semantics is that it provides only the formal beginnings of an account of the semantics of modal languages. In the case of non-modal language, we bridge the gap between semantics and mere model theory, by claiming that a sentence is true just in case it is true in an intended model. Truth in a model is given by the model theory, and an intended model is a model which has as domain the actual objects of discourse, and which relates these objects in an appropriate manner. However, the same strategy applied to the modal case seems to require an intended modal model whose domain includes mere possibilia.

This is part I of a two-part essay introducing case-intensional first order logic (CIFOL), an easy-to-use, uniform, powerful, and useful combination of first-order logic with modal logic resulting from philosophical and technical modifications of Bressan's General interpreted modal calculus (Yale University Press 1972). CIFOL starts with a set of cases; each expression has an extension in each case and an intension, which is the function from the cases to the respective case-relative extensions. Predication is intensional; identity is extensional. Definite descriptions are context-independent terms, and lambda-predicates and -operators can be introduced without constraints. These logical resources allow one to define, within CIFOL, important properties of properties, viz., extensionality (whether the property applies, depends only on an extension in one case) and absoluteness, Bressan's chief innovation that allows tracing an individual across cases without recourse to any notion of "rigid designation" or "trans-world identity." Thereby CIFOL abstains from incorporating any metaphysical principles into the quantificational machinery, unlike extant frameworks of quantified modal logic. We claim that this neutrality makes CIFOL a useful tool for discussing both metaphysical and scientific arguments involving modality and quantification, and we illustrate by discussing in diagrammatic detail a number of such arguments involving the extensional identification of individuals via absolute (substance) properties, essential properties, de re vs. de dicto, and the results of possible tests.

In his new introduction to the 1925 second edition of Principia Mathematica, Russell maintained that by adopting Wittgenstein's idea that a logically perfect language should be extensional mathematical induction could be rectified for finite cardinals without the axiom of reducibility. In an Appendix B, Russell set forth a proof. Godel caught a defect in the proof at *89.16, so that the matter of rectification remained open. Myhill later arrived at a negative result: Principia with extensionality principles and without reducibility cannot recover mathematical induction. The finite cardinals are indefinable in it. This paper shows that while Godel and Myhill are correct, Russell was not wrong. The 1925 system employs a different grammar than the original Principia. A new proof for *89.16 is given and induction is recovered.

"Predication," writes W. V. Quine, "joins a general term and a singular term to form a sentence that is true or false according as the general term is true or false of the object, if any, to which the singular term refers".1 The view of predication expressed by Quine in the quoted passage is not restricted to Quine; P. F. Strawson, for example, though perhaps not a rabid supporter of Quine's choise of words, is on record as finding the theory congenial with his own views.2 Quine has also written that "so long merely as the predicated general term is true of the object named by the singular term... the substitution of a new singular term that names the same object leaves the predication true."3 Nevertheless, most of my efforts will le directed at establishing that the theory of predication expressed in Quine's words is nonextensional. To be precise about my quite limited objective, I need Quine's help just once more. He writes that "in an opaque construction you also cannot in general supplant a general term by a coextensive term (one true of the same objects)... without disturbing the truth value of the containing sentence. Such a failure is one of the failures of extensionality."4 The theory of predication under consideration is, I claim, non-extensional in the sense that it does not satisfy the extensionality principle that coextensive general terms substitute for each other salva veritate; proof of this claim is my major objective. My secondary objective is to elicit some of the implications of the claim that the theory of predication under discussion is nonextensional.

L'A. distingue contextes extensionnels et contextes verifonctionnels, et fournit des perspectives sur leurs relations. Il etudie de ce point de vue les proprietes de connecteurs non verifonctionnels, mais extensionnels