Online research in philosophy

Using Carnap’s concept explication, we propose a theory of concept formation in mathematics. This theory is then applied to the problem of how to understand the relation between the concepts formal proof (deduction) and informal, mathematical proof.

We compare several methods of implementing the display (sequent) calculus RA for relation algebra in the logical frameworks Isabelle and Twelf. We aim for an implementation enabling us to formalise within the logical framework proof-theoretic results such as the cut-elimination theorem for RA and any associated increase in proof length. We discuss issues arising from this requirement.

Proof, Logic and Formalization addresses the various problems associated with finding a philosophically satisfying account of mathematical proof. It brings together many of the most notable figures currently writing on this issue in an attempt to explain why it is that mathematical proof is given prominence over other forms of mathematical justification. The difficulties that arise in accounts of proof range from the rightful role of logical inference and formalization to questions concerning the place of experience in proof and the possibility of eliminating impredictive reasoning from proof. Students and lecturers of philosophy, philosophy of logic, and philosophy of mathematics will find this to be essential reading. A companion volume entitled Proof and Logic in Mathematics is also available from Routledge.

The proof-theoretic analysis of logical semantics undermines the received view of proof theory as being concerned with symbols devoid of meaning, and of model theory as the sole branch of logical theory entitled to access the realm of semantics. The basic tenet of proof-theoretic semantics is that meaning is given by some rules of proofs, in terms of which all logical laws can be justified and the notion of logical consequence explained. In this paper an attempt will be made to unravel some aspects of the issue and to show that this justification as it stands is untenable, for it relies on a formalistic conception of meaning and fails to recognise the fundamental distinction between semantic definitions and rules of inference. It is also briefly suggested that the profound connection between meaning and proofs should be approached by first reconsidering our very notion of proof.

Preface -- Introduction -- There is only one reality -- The ultimate perspective and the ultimate drama -- Proof #1: Science -- Proof #2: History -- Proof #3: Prophecy -- Proof #4: Supernatural -- Proof #5: Psychology -- Proof #6: Sociology -- Proof #7: Inerrancy -- Proof #8: Micro-science -- Proof #9: Logic -- Proof #10: The only provably -- Inerrant, complete system -- Why proof is important -- Personal iplications of proof.

The entire development of modern logic is characterized by various forms of confrontation of what has come to be called proof theory with what has earned the label of model theory . For a long time the widely accepted view was that while model theory captures directly what logical formalisms are about , proof theory is merely our technical means of getting some incomplete grip on this; but in recent decades the situation has altered. Not only did proof theory expand into new realms, generalizing the concept of proof in various directions; many philosophers also realized that meaning may be seen as primarily consisting in certain rules rather than in language-world links. However, the possibility of construing meaning as an inferential role is often seen as essentially compromised by the limits of proof-theoretical means. The aim of this paper is to sort out the cluster of problems besetting logical inferentialism by disentangling and clarifying one of them, namely determining the power of various inferential frameworks as measured by that of explicitly semantic ones.

This is a purely conceptual paper. It aims at presenting and putting into perspective the idea of a proof-theoretic semantics of the logical operations. The first section briefly surveys various semantic paradigms, and Section 2 focuses on one particular paradigm, namely the proof-theoretic semantics of the logical operations.

A formal logical system for sortal quantifiers, sortal identity and (second order) quantification over sortal concepts is formulated. The absolute consistency of the system is proved. A completeness proof for the system is also constructed. This proof is relative to a concept of logical validity provided by a semantics, which assumes as its philosophical background an approach to sortals from a modern form of conceptualism.

The model-theoretic analysis of the concept of logical consequence has come under heavy criticism in the last couple of decades. The present work looks at an alternative approach to logical consequence where the notion of inference takes center stage. Formally, the model-theoretic framework is exchanged for a proof-theoretic framework. It is argued that contrary to the traditional view, proof-theoretic semantics is not revisionary, and should rather be seen as a formal semantics that can supplement model-theory. Specifically, there are formal resources to provide a proof-theoretic semantics for both intuitionistic and classical logic. We develop a new perspective on proof-theoretic harmony for logical constants which incorporates elements from the substructural era of proof-theory. We show that there is a semantic lacuna in the traditional accounts of harmony. A new theory of how inference rules determine the semantic content of logical constants is developed. The theory weds proof-theoretic and model-theoretic semantics by showing how proof-theoretic rules can induce truth-conditional clauses in Boolean and many-valued settings. It is argued that such a new approach to how rules determine meaning will ultimately assist our understanding of the apriori nature of logic.