Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||of implication and generalization rules have a close relationship, for which there is a key idea for clarifying how they are connected: varying objects. Varying objects trace how generalization rules are used along a demonstration in an axiomatic calculus. Some ways for introducing implication and for generalization are presented here, taking into account some basic properties that calculi can have.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Eric Hauser (2011). Generalization: A Practice of Situated Categorization in Talk. [REVIEW] Human Studies 34 (2):183-198.
Roland Paul Blum (1970). The True Function of the Generalization Argument. Inquiry 13 (1-4):274 – 288.
J. Howard Sobel (1967). 'Everyone', Consequences, and Generalization Arguments. Inquiry 10 (1-4):373-404.
Tomasz Fukmanowski (1982). Adjoint Interpretations of Sentential Calculi. Studia Logica 41 (4):359 - 374.
Charles Sayward (2002). Geach on Generalization. Dialogue 41 (02):221-.
Douglas Walton (1999). Rethinking the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. Argumentation 13 (2):161-182.
Fred Wilson (1995). Once More to Dissolve the Ravens. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9 (2):135 – 146.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #95,639 of 739,354 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?