Enrico Martino

The entailment connective is introduced by Priest (2006b). It aims to capture, in a dialetheically acceptable way, the informal notion of logical consequence. This connective does not “fall foul” of Curry’s Paradox by invalidating an inference rule called “Absorption” (or “Contraction”) and the classical logical theorem called “Assertion”. In this paper we show that the semantics of entailment, given by Priest in terms of possible worlds, is inadequate. In particular, we will argue that Priest’s counterexamples to Absorption and Assertion use in the metalanguage a dialetheically unacceptable principle. Furthermore, we show that the rejection of Assertion undermines Priest’s claim that the entailment connective expresses the notion of logical consequence.

This book examines the role of acts of choice in classical and intuitionistic mathematics. Featuring fifteen papers - both new and previously published - it offers a fresh analysis of concepts developed by the mathematician and philosopher L.E.J. Brouwer, the founder of intuitionism. The author explores Brouwer's idealization of the creative subject as the basis for intuitionistic truth, and in the process he also discusses an important, related question: to what extent does the intuitionistic perspective succeed in avoiding the classical realistic notion of truth? The papers detail realistic aspects in the idealization of the creative subject and investigate the hidden role of choice even in classical logic and mathematics, covering such topics as bar theorem, type theory, inductive evidence, Beth models, fallible models, and more. In addition, the author offers a critical analysis of the response of key mathematicians and philosophers to Brouwer's work. These figures include Michael Dummett, Saul Kripke, Per Martin-Löf, and Arend Heyting. This book appeals to researchers and graduate students with an interest in philosophy of mathematics, linguistics, and mathematics.

The present paper deals with natural intuitionistic semantics for intuitionistic logic within an intuitionistic metamathematics. We show how strong completeness of full first-order logic fails. We then consider a negationless semantics à la Henkin for second-order intuitionistic logic. By using the theory of lawless sequences we prove that, for such semantics, strong completeness is restorable. We argue that lawless negationless semantics is a suitable framework for a constructive structuralist interpretation of any second-order formalisable theory (classical or intuitionistic, contradictory or not).

I introduced the “principle of inductive evidence” PIE in my paper “Creative subject and bar theorem” (Martino 1982). Because of a misunderstanding in my correspondence with the editors, the published version of the above paper is not the final revised draft, but a first outline of the article which needs some corrections and explications. I shall refer to the published version as CS. In CS, I asserted somewhat rashly the absolute equivalence of PIE and the monotonic bar theorem $$BI_{M}$$ by means of all too sketchy proof in the course of which I introduced in passing a rather problematic assumption without explaining it properly. Therefore, I shall present here a more adequate treatment of the connection between PIE and $$BI_{M}$$. In fact, I shall assume acquaintance with Sects. 4.1 and Theorem 4.1 of CS and provide a revised version of Theorem 4.2.

In Sect. 11.2, we argue that the adoption of a tenseless notion of truth entails a realistic view of propositions and provability. This view, in turn, opens the way to the intelligibility of the classical meaning of the logical constants and consequently is incompatible with the antirealism of orthodox Intuitionism. In Sect. 11.3, we show how what we call the “potential” intuitionistic meaning of the logical constants can be defined, on the one hand, by means of the notion of atemporal provability and, on the other hand, by means of the operator K of epistemic logic. Intuitionistic logic, as reconstructed within this perspective, turns out to be a part of epistemic logic, so that it loses its traditional foundational role, antithetic to that of classical logic. In Sect. 11.4, we uphold the view that certain consequences of the adoption of a temporal notion of truth, despite their apparent oddity, are quite acceptable from an antirealist point of view.

Brouwer’s theorem of 1927 on the equivalence between virtual and inextensible order is discussed. Several commentators considered the theorem at issue as problematic in various ways. Brouwer himself, at a certain time, believed to have found a very simple counterexample to his theorem. In some later publications, however, he stated the theorem in the original form again. It is argued that the source of all criticisms is Brouwer’s overly elliptical formulation of the definition of inextensible order, as well as a certain ambiguity in his terminology. Once these drawbacks are removed, his proof goes through.

In Parts of Classes David Lewis attempts to draw a sharp contrast between mereology and set theory and he tries to assimilate mereology to logic. For him, like logic but unlike set theory, mereology is “ontologically innocent”. In mereology, given certain objects, no further ontological commitment is required for the existence of their sum. On the contrary, by accepting set theory, given certain objects, a further commitment is required for the existence of the set of them. The latter – unlike the sum of the given objects – seems to be an abstract entity whose existence is not directly entailed by the existence of the objects themselves. The argument for the innocence of mereology is grounded on the thesis of composition as identity. In our paper we argue that: arguments for the ontological innocence of mereology are not conclusive. Some arguments against the ontological innocence of mereology show a certain ambiguity in the innocence thesis itself. The innocence thesis seems to depend on a general conception of the nature of objects and on how the notion of ontological commitment is understood. Specifically, we think that the thesis is the manifesto of a realistic conception of parts and sums. Quine‟s notorious criticism of the set-theoretical interpretation of second order logic seems to be reproducible against Lewis‟defence of mereology. To the purpose we construct a mereological model of a substantive fragment of set theory, adequate to ground the set-theoretical semantics of second order logic.

In To be is to be the object of a possible act of choice the authors defended Boolos’ thesis that plural quantification is part of logic. To this purpose, plural quantification was explained in terms of plural reference, and a semantics of plural acts of choice, performed by an ideal team of agents, was introduced. In this paper, following that approach, we develop a theory of concepts that—in a sense to be explained—can be labeled as a theory of logical concepts. Within this theory, we propose a new logicist approach to natural numbers. Then, we compare our logicism with Frege’s traditional logicism.

The present paper deals with natural intuitionistic semantics for intuitionistic logic within an intuitionistic metamathematics. We show how strong completeness of full first order logic fails. We then consider a negationless semantics à la Henkin for second order intuitionistic logic. By using the theory of lawless sequences we prove that, for such semantics, strong completeness is restorable. We argue that lawless negationless semantics is a suitable framework for a constructive structuralist interpretation of any second order formalizable theory (classical or intuitionistic, contradictory or not)

Brouwer's theorem of 1927 on the equivalence between virtual and inextensible order is discussed. Several commentators considered the theorem at issue as problematic in various ways. Brouwer himself, at a certain time, believed to have found a very simple counter-example to his theorem. In some later publications, however, he stated the theorem in the original form again. It is argued that the source of all criticisms is Brouwer's overly elliptical formulation of the definition of inextensible order, as well as a certain ambiguity in his terminology. Once these drawbacks are removed, his proof goes through