Philosophia Mathematica 18 (3):276-292 (2010)
|Abstract||The logical status of abstraction principles, and especially Hume’s Principle, has been long debated, but the best currently availeble tool for explicating a notion’s logical character—permutation invariance—has not received a lot of attention in this debate. This paper aims to fill this gap. After characterizing abstraction principles as particular mappings from the subsets of a domain into that domain and exploring some of their properties, the paper introduces several distinct notions of permutation invariance for such principles, assessing the philosophical significance of each|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Similar books and articles
Øystein Linnebo (2009). Introduction. Synthese 170 (3):321-329.
Øystein Linnebo (2009). Bad Company Tamed. Synthese 170 (3):371 - 391.
Nancy Cartwright (2003). Two Theorems on Invariance and Causality. Philosophy of Science 70 (1):203-224.
Øystein Linnebo & Gabriel Uzquiano (2009). Which Abstraction Principles Are Acceptable? Some Limitative Results. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (2):239-252.
Matti Eklund (2009). Bad Company and Neo-Fregean Philosophy. Synthese 170 (3):393 - 414.
Denis Bonnay (2006). Logicality and Invariance. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14 (1):29-68.
Ornaith O'Dowd (2011). Care and Abstract Principles. Hypatia 27 (2):407-422.
Rafal Urbaniak (2010). Neologicist nominalism. Studia Logica 96 (2):149-173.
Added to index2010-08-11
Total downloads18 ( #74,484 of 722,787 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,787 )
How can I increase my downloads?