Russell, Frege, and the nature of implication
Topoi 18 (2) (1999)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesKevin C. Klement (2009). A Cantorian Argument Against Frege's and Early Russell's Theories of Descriptions. In Nicholas Griffin & Dale Jacquette (eds.), Russell Vs. Meinong: The Legacy of "on Denoting". Routledge.
James Levine (2002). Analysis and Decomposition in Frege and Russell. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (207):195-216.
Kevin C. Klement (2001). Russell's Paradox in Appendix B of the Principles of Mathematics : Was Frege's Response Adequate? History and Philosophy of Logic 22 (1):13-28.
Ian Proops (2002). The Tractatus on Inference and Entailment. In Erich Reck (ed.), From Frege to Wittgenstein: Essays on Early Analytic Philosophy, 283–307. Oxford University Press.
Kevin C. Klement (2004). Putting Form Before Function: Logical Grammar in Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein. Philosophers' Imprint 4 (2):1-47.
Gideon Makin (2000). The Metaphysicians of Meaning: Russell and Frege on Sense and Denotation. Routledge.
R. K. Perkins (1982). Russell, Frege, and the "Meaning" of the Theory of Descriptions (Or): Did Russell Know His Frege? Journal of the History of Philosophy 20 (4):407-423.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads10 ( #106,175 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
