Who needs (to assume) Hume's principle?

Abstract

Neo-logicism uses definitions and Hume's Principle to derive arithmetic in second-order logic. This paper investigates how much arithmetic can be derived using definitions alone, without any additional principle such as Hume's.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Reals by Abstraction.Bob Hale - 2000 - Philosophia Mathematica 8 (2):100--123.
Is Hume's principle analytic?Crispin Wright - 1999 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 40 (1):307-333.
Finitude and Hume's Principle.Richard G. Heck Jr - 1997 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (6):589 - 617.
Aristotelian logic, axioms, and abstraction.Roy T. Cook - 2003 - Philosophia Mathematica 11 (2):195-202.
The logic in logicism.Alexander Bird - 1997 - Dialogue 36 (2):341--60.
Hume = small Hume.Jeffrey Ketland - 2002 - Analysis 62 (1):92–93.
On finite hume.Fraser Macbride - 2000 - Philosophia Mathematica 8 (2):150-159.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
869 (#14,993)

6 months
53 (#71,594)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations