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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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 …

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).

Gottlob Frege defined cardinal numbers in terms of value-ranges governed by the inconsistent Basic Law V. Neo-logicists have revived something like Frege's original project by introducing cardinal numbers as primitive objects, governed by Hume's Principle. A neo-logicist foundation for set theory, however, requires a consistent theory of value-ranges of some sort. Thus, it is natural to ask whether we can reconstruct the cardinal numbers by retaining Frege's definition and adopting an alternative consistent principle governing value-ranges. Given some natural assumptions regarding what an acceptable neo-logicistic theory of value-ranges might look like, successfully implementing this alternative approach is impossible

On the Dummettian understanding, anti-realism regarding a particular discourse amounts to (or at the very least, involves) a refusal to accept the determinacy of the subject matter of that discourse and a corresponding refusal to assert at least some instances of excluded middle (which can be understood as expressing this determinacy of subject matter). In short: one is an anti-realist about a discourse if and only if one accepts intuitionistic logic as correct for that discourse. On careful examination, the strongest Dummettian arguments for anti-realism of this sort fail to secure intuitionistic logic as the single, correct logic for anti-realist discourses. Instead, antirealists are placed in a situation where they fail to be justified in asserting monism (that intuitionistic logic is the unique correct logic). Thus, antirealists seem forced either to accept pluralism (i.e. one or more intermediate logic is at least as `correct’ as intuitionistic logic–an option I take to be unattractive from the anti-realist perspective), or they must be anti-realists about the realism/anti-realism debate (and, in particular, must refuse to assert the instance of excluded middle equivalent to logical monism or logical pluralism)

Paradoxes are arguments that lead from apparently true premises, via apparently uncontroversial reasoning, to a false or even contradictory conclusion. Paradoxes threaten our basic understanding of central concepts such as space, time, motion, infinity, truth, knowledge, and belief. In this volume Roy T Cook provides a sophisticated, yet accessible and entertaining, introduction to the study of paradoxes, one that includes a detailed examination of a wide variety of paradoxes. The book is organized around four important types of paradox: the semantic paradoxes involving truth, the set-theoretic paradoxes involving arbitrary collections of objects, the Soritical paradoxes involving vague concepts, and the epistemic paradoxes involving knowledge and belief. In each of these cases, Cook frames the discussion in terms of four different approaches one might take towards solving such paradoxes. Each chapter concludes with a number of exercises that illustrate the philosophical arguments and logical concepts involved in the paradoxes. _Paradoxes_ is the ideal introduction to the topic and will be a valuable resource for scholars and students in a wide variety of disciplines who wish to understand the important role that paradoxes have played, and continue to play, in contemporary philosophy.