Logical and semantic purity
Protosociology 25:36-48 (2008)
|Abstract||Many mathematicians have sought ‘pure’ proofs of theorems. There are different takes on what a ‘pure’ proof is, though, and it’s important to be clear on their differences, because they can easily be conflated. In this paper I want to distinguish between two of them.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Heinrich Wansing (2000). The Idea of a Proof-Theoretic Semantics and the Meaning of the Logical Operations. Studia Logica 64 (1):3-20.
Ole T. Hjortland (2009). The Structure of Logical Consequence : Proof-Theoretic Conceptions. Dissertation, University of St Andrews
John MacFarlane, Logical Constants. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Harold T. Hodes (2004). On The Sense and Reference of A Logical Constant. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (214):134-165.
Dana Berthold (2010). Tidy Whitenes: A Genealogy of Race, Purity, and Hygiene. Ethics and the Environment 15 (1):pp. 1-26.
Patrizio Contu (2006). The Justification of the Logical Laws Revisited. Synthese 148 (3):573 - 588.
Patrick Allo (2007). Logical Pluralism and Semantic Information. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (6):659 - 694.
Michael Detlefsen & Andrew Arana (2011). Purity of Methods. Philosophers' Imprint 11 (2).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #34,776 of 556,840 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,840 )
How can I increase my downloads?