Philosophia Mathematica 15 (1):79-93 (2007)
|Abstract||John Burgess in a 2004 paper combined plural logic and a new version of the idea of limitation of size to give an elegant motivation of the axioms of ZFC set theory. His proposal is meant to improve on earlier work by Paul Bernays in two ways. I argue that both attempted improvements fail. I am grateful to Philip Welch, two anonymous referees, and especially Ignacio Jané for written comments on earlier versions of this paper, which have led to substantial improvements. Thanks also to the participants in a discussion group at the University of Bristol, where an earlier version was presented.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stephen Pollard (1985). Plural Quantification and the Iterative Concept of Set. Philosophy Research Archives 11:579-587.
George Boolos (1998). Logic, Logic, and Logic. Harvard University Press.
Gabriel Uzquiano (2003). Plural Quantification and Classes. Philosophia Mathematica 11 (1):67-81.
Øystein Linnebo & David Nicolas (2008). Superplurals in English. Analysis 68 (299):186–197.
Einar Duenger Bohn (2012). Monism, Emergence, and Plural Logic. Erkenntnis 76 (2):211-223.
Helen Morris Cartwright (1993). On Plural Reference and Elementary Set Theory. Synthese 96 (2):201 - 254.
Charles Chihara (2007). The Burgess-Rosen Critique of Nominalistic Reconstructions. Philosophia Mathematica 15 (1):54--78.
Alexander Paseau (2007). Boolos on the Justification of Set Theory. Philosophia Mathematica 15 (1):30-53.
John P. Burgess (2004). E Pluribus Unum: Plural Logic and Set Theory. Philosophia Mathematica 12 (3):193-221.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads61 ( #18,734 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,438 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?