Roy T. Cook

I propose a novel way of viewing the connection between mathematical discourse and the mathematical logician's formalizations of it. We should abandon the idea that formalizations are accurate descriptions of mathematical activity. Instead, logicians are in the business of supplying models in much the same way that a mathematical physicist formulates models of physical phenomena or the hobbyist constructs models of ships. ;I first examine problems with the traditional view, and I survey some prior work in the spirit of the logic-as-model, including that of Gerhard Gentzen, Georg Kreisel, and Imre Lakatos. The utility of the present framework is then demonstrated in three case studies. ;First, this approach solves a purported problem with precise semantics for vagueness. Precise semantics supposedly err by replacing the defining characteristic of vagueness with precise cut-offs, but on the logic-as-model approach this precision can be seen as an artifact serving to simplify the model but corresponding to nothing actually found in vague languages. ;Second, on the logic-as-model view the advantages claimed for branching quantifiers, i.e. providing the expressiveness of second-order languages while avoiding their semantic intractability, are illusory. On the one hand, second-order formulations of mathematical concepts are usually far more natural than branching quantifier formulations; on the other hand, branching quantifiers are no more tractable than second-order languages. ;Finally, I examine the claim that Gottfried Leibniz's infinitesimal calculus is nothing other than Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis. Although non-standard analysis is a useful model, there are other formalizations of Leibniz's mathematics as fruitful as, yet incompatible with, the non-standard approach, a fact hard to reconcile with the idea that logic provides accurate descriptions. ;After the case studies, I examine the objectivity of logic from the logic-as-model framework. This issue is difficult enough on traditional accounts of logic, and would seem to become even more difficult from the present point of view. Nevertheless, a rich picture of the objectivity of logic is worked out with interesting new sorts of indeterminacy arising from the idea that logic provides models and not descriptions

Es bestehen tiefgreifende Zusammenhänge zwischen Leibniz' Mathematik und seiner Metaphysik. Dieser Aufsatz hat das Ziel, das Verständnis für diese beiden Bereiche zu erweitern, indem er Leibniz' Mereologie (die Theorie der Teile und des Ganzen) näher untersucht. Zunachst wird Leibniz' Mereologie primär anhand seiner Schrift “Initia rerum mathematicarum metaphysica" rekonstruiert. Dieses ehrgeizige Programm beginnt mit dem einfachen Begriff der Kompräsenz, geht dann iiber zu komplexeren Begriffen wie Gleichheit, Ähnlichkeit und Homogenität und kulminiert letztlich in der Leibnizschen Definition der Begriffe Teil, Ganzes und Komposition. Im Verlauf des Aufsatzes werden auch weitere Erkenntnisse in anderen Bereichen gewonnen, so z. B. in bezug auf die Identität des Ununterscheidbaren. Schließlich werde ich im Rahmen der vorgelegten Theorie versuchen, ein Mißverständnis bezüglich Leibniz' Analogie zwischen Monaden und mathematischen Punkten, welche sich auf die Räumlichkeit der Monaden bezieht, auszuräumen

This dictionary introduces undergraduate and post-graduate students in philosophy, mathematics, and computer science to the main problems and positions in philosophical logic. Coverage includes not only key figures, positions, terminology, and debates within philosophical logic itself, but issues in related, overlapping disciplines such as set theory and the philosophy of mathematics as well. Entries are extensively cross-referenced, so that each entry can be easily located within the context of wider debates, thereby providing a valuable reference both for tracking the connections between concepts within logic and for examining the manner in which these concepts are applied in other philosophical disciplines. Roy T. Cook is Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota and an Associate Fellow at Arché, the Philosophical Research Centre for Logic, Language, Metaphysics and Epistemology at the University of St Andrews. He works primarily in the philosophy of logic, language, and mathematics, and has also published papers on seventeenth century philosophy.

Timothy Williamson’s Modal Logic as Metaphysics is a book-length defense of necessitism about objects—roughly put, the view that, necessarily, any object that exists, exists necessarily. In more formal terms, Williamson argues for the validity of necessitism for objects (NO: ◻︎∀x◻︎∃y(x=y)). NO entails both the (first-order) Barcan formula (BF: ◇∃xΦ → ∃x◇Φ, for any formula Φ) and the (first-order) converse Barcan formula (CBF: ∃x◇Φ → ◇∃xΦ, for any formula Φ). The purpose of this essay is not to assess Williamson’s arguments either for necessitism (although discussion of these arguments will play a central role in the dialectic) or for necessitism’s two famous corollaries. Instead, the focus shall be a general principle governing abstract objects—the abstract of principle (or AOP) —instances of which seems to be at work in some of Williamson’s central arguments for necessitism. The AOP can be straightforwardly formulated and applied within the neo-logicist framework—in fact, arguably the principle is most naturally formulated in neo-logicist terms. After closely examining, and carefully formalizing, the AOP, the remainder of the paper focuses on arguments for necessitism-like claims (the exact meaning of “necessitism-like” will become clearer as the essay progresses) based on the AOP. In particular, we shall focus on the instance of the AOP that applies to the abstract objects governed by the most well-known and most fully studied abstraction principle: Hume’s Principle (HP). It turns out that, although we cannot reconstruct a valid argument for necessitism based on this numerical instance of the AOP, we can obtain valid arguments for weaker, but equally interesting conclusions. In particular, we shall show that, although HP combined with the AOP (and some additional, related assumptions) allows the contents of the domains of possible worlds to vary, the size of those domains must remain constant. The paper concludes by developing and critiquing some related arguments for necessitism based on applying relevant instances of the AOP to abstraction principles governing sets (or extensions), and to a simple objectual abstraction principle.

Fine and Antonelli introduce two generalizations of permutation invariance — internal invariance and simple/double invariance respectively. After sketching reasons why a solution to the Bad Company problem might require that abstraction principles be invariant in one or both senses, I identify the most fine-grained abstraction principle that is invariant in each sense. Hume’s Principle is the most fine-grained abstraction principle invariant in both senses. I conclude by suggesting that this partially explains the success of Hume’s Principle, and the comparative lack of success in reconstructing areas of mathematics other than arithmetic based on non-invariant abstraction principles.

It is sometimes suggested that impure sets are spatially co-located with their members (and hence are located in space). Sets, however, are in important respects like numbers. In particular, sets are connected to concepts in much the same manner as numbers are connected to concepts—in both cases, they are fundamentally abstracts of (or corresponding to) concepts. This parallel between the structure of sets and the structure of numbers suggests that the metaphysics of sets and the metaphysics of numbers should parallel each other in relevant ways. This entails, in turn, that impure sets are not co-located with their members (nor are they located in space)

The No-No Paradox consists of a pair of statements, each of which ?says? the other is false. Roy Sorensen claims that the No-No Paradox provides an example of a true statement that has no truthmaker: Given the relevant instances of the T-schema, one of the two statements comprising the ?paradox? must be true (and the other false), but symmetry constraints prevent us from determining which, and thus prevent there being a truthmaker grounding the relevant assignment of truth values. Sorensen's view is mistaken: situated within an appropriate background theory of truth, the statements comprising the No-No Paradox are genuinely paradoxical in the same sense as is the Liar (and thus, on Sorensen's view, must fail to have truth values). This result has consequences beyond Sorensen's semantic framework. In particular, the No-No Paradox, properly understood, is not only a new paradox, but also provides us with a new type of paradox, one which depends upon a general background theory of the truth predicate in a way that the Liar Paradox and similar constructions do not

During the Winter of 2011 I visited SADAF and gave a series of talks based on the central chapters of my manuscript on the Yablo paradox. The following year, I visited again, and was pleased and honored to find out that Eduardo Barrio and six of his students had written ‘responses’ that addressed the claims and arguments found in the manuscript, as well as explored new directions in which to take the ideas and themes found there. These comments reflect my thoughts on these responses (also collected in this issue), as well as my thoughts on further issues that arose during the symposium that was based on the papers and during the many hours I spent talking and working with Eduardo and his students. Durante el invierno de 2011, visité SADAF y dí una serie de conferencias sobre los capítulos centrales de mi manuscrito sobre la paradoja de Yablo. El año siguiente, visité Buenos aires nuevamente y tuve el placer y el honor de descubrir que Eduardo Barrio y seis de sus estudiantes habían escrito respuestas que abordan las afirmaciones y argumentos de mi manuscrito, además de explorar nuevas direcciones en las cuales considerar las ideas y temas encontrados allí. El presente trabajo refleja mis pensamientos sobre estas respuestas (también incluidas en este volumen), así como mis ideas sobre otras cuestiones que surgieron durante el simposio en el que se presentaron los artículos y en las muchas horas que nosotros discutimos y trabajamos con Eduardo y sus estudiantes

A difficulty for alethic pluralism has been the idea that semantic evaluation of conjunctions whose conjuncts come from discourses with distinct truth properties requires a third notion of truth which applies to both of the original discourses. But this line of reasoning does not entail that there exists a single generic truth property that applies to all statements and all discourses, unless it is supplemented with additional, controversial, premises. So the problem of mixed conjunctions, while highlighting other aspects of alethic pluralism worth investigating further, does not constitute an effective objection to it

A number of formal constraints on acceptable abstraction principles have been proposed, including conservativeness and irenicity. Hume’s Principle, of course, satisfies these constraints. Here, variants of Hume’s Principle that allow us to count concepts instead of objects are examined. It is argued that, prima facie, these principles ought to be no more problematic than HP itself. But, as is shown here, these principles only enjoy the formal properties that have been suggested as indicative of acceptability if certain constraints on the size of the continuum hold. As a result, whether or not these higher-order versions of Hume’s Principle are acceptable seems to be independent of standard (ZFC) set theory. This places the abstractionist in an uncomfortable dilemma: Either there is some inherent difference between counting objects and counting concepts, or new criteria for acceptability will need to be found. It is argued that neither horn looks promising.

The Liar paradox is the directly self-referential Liar statement: This statement is false.or : " Λ: ∼ T 1" The argument that proceeds from the Liar statement and the relevant instance of the T-schema: " T ↔ Λ" to a contradiction is familiar. In recent years, a number of variations on the Liar paradox have arisen in the literature on semantic paradox. The two that will concern us here are the Curry paradox, 2 and the Yablo paradox. 3The Curry paradox demonstrates that neither negation nor a falsity predicate is required in order to generate semantic paradoxes. Given any statement Φ whatsoever, we need merely consider the statement: If this statement is true, then Φor: " Ξ: T → Φ" Here, via familiar reasoning, one can ‘prove’ Φ merely through consideration of statement Ξ and the Ξ-instance of the T-schema.Interestingly, the Liar paradox can be viewed as nothing more than a special case of the Curry paradox. If we define negation in terms of the conditional and a primitive absurdity constant ‘⊥’: 4" ∼ Ψ = df Ψ → ⊥" then the Liar paradox is simply the instance of the Curry paradox obtained by substituting ‘⊥’ for Φ.The Yablo paradox demonstrates that circularity is also not required in order to generate semantic paradox. 5 The paradox proceeds by considering an infinite ω-sequence of statements of the form: S 1: ) S 2: ) S 3: ) : : : : : S i: ) : : : : : :– that is, the set of …

One of the main reasons for providing formal semantics for languages is that the mathematical precision afforded by such semantics allows us to study and manipulate the formalization much more easily than if we were to study the relevant natural languages directly. Michael Tye and R. M. Sainsbury have argued that traditional set-theoretic semantics for vague languages are all but useless, however, since this mathematical precision eliminates the very phenomenon (vagueness) that we are trying to capture. Here we meet this objection by viewing formalization as a process of building models, not providing descriptions. When we are constructing models, as opposed to accurate descriptions, we often include in the model extra ‘machinery’ of some sort in order to facilitate our manipulation of the model. In other words, while some parts of a model accurately represent actual aspects of the phenomenon being modelled, other parts might be merely artefacts of the particular model. With this distinction in place, the criticisms of Sainsbury and Tye are easily dealt with—the precision of the semantics is artefactual and does not represent any real precision in vague discourse. Although this solution to this problem is independent of any particular semantics a detailed account of how we would distinguish between representor and artefact within Dorothy Edgington's degree-theoretic semantics is presented.

We begin with a prepositional languageLpcontaining conjunction (Λ), a class of sentence names {Sα}αϵA, and a falsity predicateF. We (only) allow unrestricted infinite conjunctions, i.e., given any non-empty class of sentence names {Sβ}βϵB,is a well-formed formula (we will useWFFto denote the set of well-formed formulae).The language, as it stands, is unproblematic. Whether various paradoxes are produced depends on which names are assigned to which sentences. What is needed is a denotation function:For example, theLPsentence “F(S1)” (i.e.,Λ{F(S1)}), combined with a denotation functionδsuch thatδ(S1)“F(S1)”, provides the (or, in this context, a)Liar Paradox.To give a more interesting example,Yablo's Paradox[4] can be reconstructed within this framework.Yablo's Paradoxconsists of an ω-sequence of sentences {Sk}kϵωwhere, for eachnϵω:WithinLPan equivalent construction can be obtained using infinite conjunction in place of universal quantification - the sentence names are {Si}iϵωand the denotation function is given by:We can express this in more familiar terms as:etc.

Logical pluralism is the view that there is more than one correct logic. In this article, I explore what logical pluralism is, and what it entails, by: (i) distinguishing clearly between relativism about a particular domain and pluralism about that domain; (ii) distinguishing between a number of forms logical pluralism might take; (iii) attempting to distinguish between those versions of pluralism that are clearly true and those that are might be controversial; and (iv) surveying three prominent attempts to argue for logical pluralism and evaluating them along the criteria provided by (ii) and (iii).