Graduate studies at Western
Theoria 4 (1):81-106 (1988)
|Abstract||In this paper we discuss the way logical consequence depends on what sets there are. We try to find out what set-theoretical assumptions have to be made to determine a logic, i.e., to give a definite answer to whether any given argument is correct. Consideration of second order logic -which is left highly indetermined by the usual set-theoretical axioms- prompts us to suggest a slightly different but natural nation of logical consequence, which reduces second order logic indeterminacy without interfering with first order logic|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Marcel van de Vel (2002). Interpreting First-Order Theories Into a Logic of Records. Studia Logica 72 (3):411-432.
Jerzy Kotas & N. C. A. Costa (1979). A New Formulation of Discussive Logic. Studia Logica 38 (4):429 - 445.
Vilém Novák (1987). First-Order Fuzzy Logic. Studia Logica 46 (1):87 - 109.
David Pearce & Agustín Valverde (2005). A First Order Nonmonotonic Extension of Constructive Logic. Studia Logica 80 (2-3):321 - 346.
Dmitry Zaitsev (2009). A Few More Useful 8-Valued Logics for Reasoning with Tetralattice Eight. Studia Logica 92 (2):265 - 280.
Alexander Paseau (2010). Pure Second-Order Logic with Second-Order Identity. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (3):351-360.
Ignacio Jané (1993). A Critical Appraisal of Second-Order Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 14 (1):67-86.
Jouko Väänänen (2012). Second Order Logic or Set Theory? Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 18 (1):91-121.
Ignacio Jané (2003). Remarks on Second-Order Consequence. Theoria 18 (2):179-187.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #292,563 of 739,404 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,404 )
How can I increase my downloads?