Correspondence
Philosophy 36 (138):371- (1961)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJon Barwise & Lawrence S. Moss (1998). Modal Correspondence for Models. Journal of Philosophical Logic 27 (3):275-294.
Schick (1985). In Defense of the Correspondence Theory. Philosophy Research Archives 11:319-334.
David Pearce & Veikko Rantala (1983). Correspondence as an Intertheory Relation. Studia Logica 42 (2-3):363 - 371.
Patricia Marino (2006). What Should a Correspondence Theory Be and Do? Philosophical Studies 127 (3):415 - 457.
D. Patterson (2003). What is a Correspondence Theory of Truth? Synthese 137 (3):421 - 444.
E. S. de Beer (ed.) (2010). The Correspondence of John Locke, Volume 1: Introduction, Letters 1-461. OUP Oxford.
Kenneth F. Schaffner (1969). Correspondence Rules. Philosophy of Science 36 (3):280-290.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2010-08-10Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
