Thomas Ferguson

In this article, we consider variations of Nuel Belnap’s ‘artificial reasoner’. In particular, we examine cases in which the artificial reasoner is faulty, e.g. situations in which the reasoner is unable to calculate the value of a formula due to an inability to retrieve the values of its atoms. In the first half of the article, we consider two ways of modelling such circumstances and prove the deductive systems arising from these two types of models to be equivalent to Graham Priest’s first-degree entailment with an ‘emptiness’ value and Richard Angell’s analytic containment, making computational interpretations of these systems possible. The Belnap-type semantics for AC bring FDE φ and AC in line with other containment logics in their neighborhood. The second half of the article examines formal questions, such as whether AC admits an analysis along the lines of that given to the related system of William Parry’s system of analytic implication, as suggested by Kurt Gödel and confirmed by Kit Fine. Furthermore, a natural means of extending these systems to languages with an intensional implication connective is investigated.

In a recent paper, John Wigglesworth explicates the notion of a set's being grounded in or ontologically depending on its members by the modal statement that in any world, that a set exists in that world entails that its members exist as well. After suggesting that variable-domain S5 captures an appropriate account of metaphysical necessity, Wigglesworth purports to prove that in any set theory satisfying the axiom Extensionality this condition holds, that is, that sets ontologically depend on their members with respect to extraordinarily weak notions of set. This paper diagnoses a number of problems concerning Wigglesworth's formal argument. For one, we will show that Wigglesworth's argument is invalid as it requires an appeal to hidden, extralogical theses concerning rigid designation and the persistence of sets across possible worlds. Having demonstrated the indispensability of these principles to Wigglesworth's argument, we will then show that even granted the enthymematic premises, the argument only proves the ontological dependence of singletons on their members and does not extend to sets in general. Finally, we will consider strengthenings of Wigglesworth's reasoning and suggest that even the weakest generalization will bear undesirable consequences.