Studia Logica 64 (3):365-403 (2000)
|Abstract||On the one hand, the absence of contraction is a safeguard against the logical (property theoretic) paradoxes; but on the other hand, it also disables inductive and recursive definitions, in its most basic form the definition of the series of natural numbers, for instance. The reason for this is simply that the effectiveness of a recursion clause depends on its being available after application, something that is usually assured by contraction. This paper presents a way of overcoming this problem within the framework of a logic based on inclusion and unrestricted abstraction, without any form of extensionality.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Bacon (1982). First-Order Logic Based on Inclusion and Abstraction. Journal of Symbolic Logic 47 (4):793-808.
W. V. Quine (1937). Logic Based on Inclusion and Abstraction. Journal of Symbolic Logic 2 (4):145-152.
Sven Ove Hansson (2010). Multiple and Iterated Contraction Reduced to Single-Step Single-Sentence Contraction. Synthese 173 (2).
Andreja Prijatelj (1995). Connectification Forn-Contraction. Studia Logica 54 (2):149 - 171.
Greg Restall (1993). How to Bereally Contraction Free. Studia Logica 52 (3):381 - 391.
Richard B. White (1993). A Consistent Theory of Attributes in a Logic Without Contraction. Studia Logica 52 (1):113 - 142.
Sven Ove Hansson (2008). Specified Meet Contraction. Erkenntnis 69 (1):31 - 54.
Raghav Ramachandran, Abhaya C. Nayak & Mehmet A. Orgun (2012). Three Approaches to Iterated Belief Contraction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (1):115-142.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #114,063 of 549,084 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,084 )
How can I increase my downloads?