|Abstract||This paper builds on the system of David Lewis’s “Parts of Classes” to provide a foundation for mathematics that arguably requires not only no distinctively mathematical ideological commitments (in the sense of Quine), but also no distinctively mathematical ontological commitments. Provided only that there are enough individual atoms, the devices of plural quantification and mereology can be employed to simulate quantification over classes, while at the same time allowing all of the atoms (and most of their fusions with which we are concerned) to be individuals (that is, urelements of classes). The final section of the paper canvasses some reasons to be committed to the required ontology for other than mathematical reasons.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Holger Sturm (2000). Elementary Classes in Basic Modal Logic. Studia Logica 64 (2):193-213.
Nikk Effingham (2011). Universalism and Classes. Dialectica 65 (3):451-472.
Michael Davis & Alan Feinerman (2012). Assessing Graduate Student Progress in Engineering Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):351-367.
Nino B. Cocchiarella (2002). On the Logic of Classes as Many. Studia Logica 70 (3):303-338.
Geoffrey Hellman (1994). Real Analysis Without Classes. Philosophia Mathematica 2 (3):228-250.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1980). Tarski and Proper Classes. Analysis 40 (4):6-11.
Arthur C. Caplan (1980). Have Species Become Declasse? Psa 1980:71-82.
Peter M. Simons (1983). Class, Mass and Mereology. History and Philosophy of Logic 4 (1-2):157-180.
Gabriel Uzquiano (2003). Plural Quantification and Classes. Philosophia Mathematica 11 (1):67-81.
John L. Bell (2000). Sets and Classes as Many. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (6):585-601.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #36,634 of 549,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,450 of 549,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?