Remarks on Second-Order Consequence

Theoria 18 (2):179-187 (2003)
Tarski’s definition of logical consequence can take different forms when implemented in second order languages, depending on what counts as a model. In the canonical, or standard, version, a model is just an ordinary structure and the (monadic) second-order variables are meant to range over all subsets of its domain. We discuss the dependence of canonical second-order consequence on set theory and raise doubts on the assumption that canonical consequence is a definite relation
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI theoria200318215
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,658
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Greg Ray (1996). Logical Consequence: A Defense of Tarski. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):617 - 677.
Agustin Rayo (1999). Toward a Theory of Second-Order Consequence. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 40 (3):315-325.
William H. Hanson (1999). Ray on Tarski on Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):605-616.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

5 ( #377,318 of 1,725,999 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

4 ( #183,615 of 1,725,999 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.