Skip to main content
Log in

Book reviews

  • Published:
Philosophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Bar-Hillel, Y. (1954) ‘Remarks on Carnap'sLogical Syntax of Language’, inAspects of Language, Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, C. (1966) Discussion in J. Lyons & R.J. Wales, eds.,Psycholinguistic Papers, Edinburgh University Press.

  • Kasher, A. (1972) ‘Sentences and utterances reconsidered’.FL 8.313–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lighthill, Sir James,et al., (1973)Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium. Science Research Council, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orgass, R.J. & ‘A theory of programming languages’,Studium Generale 22. 113–36.

  • Putnam, H. (1967) ‘The “innateness hypothesis” and explanatory models in linguistics’.Synthese 17.12ff.

  • Quine, W. van O. (1953) ‘Two dogmas of empiricism’, inFrom a Logical Point of View, 2nd. ed., Harper & Row, New York, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J.R. (1970) ‘On dcclarative sentences’. R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum, eds.,Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham (Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, G.R. (1972) ‘Can language be explained functionally?’Synthese 23.477–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turing, A.M. (1950) ‘Computing machinery and intelligence’.Mind 59.433–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T. (1972) ‘Understanding natural language’,Cognitive Psychology 3.1–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

References

  • Gödel, K.: The consistency of the axiom of choice and of the generalized continuum hypothesis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences &U.S.A.) 24 (1938), 556–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreisel, G.: Observation on Popular Discussions of Foundations.Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. XIII Axiomatic Set Theory, Part 1 (1971), 189–198

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Hajek, P.: Contributions to the theory of semisets I,Zeitschr. f. math. Logik und Grundlagen d. Math. 18 (1972), p. 241–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajek, P.: Why Semisets?.Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae, 14 (1973), p. 397–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, J.B.:Simplified independence proofs — Boolean valued models of set theory, Academic Press 1969.

  • Scott, D.S. and R. Solovay:Boolean valued models of set theory, to appear.

  • Schoenfield, J.R.: Unrammified forcing,Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Volume XIII — Axiomatic Set Theory, Part 1 (1971), p. 357–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeuti G. and W.M. Zaring:Axiomatic Set Theory, Springer-Verlag 1973.

  • Vopenka, P.: General Theory of Δ-models,Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae, 8 (1967), p. 145–170.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brody, B., Swinburne, R.G., Michalos, A.C. et al. Book reviews. Philosophia 4, 351–439 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379235

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379235

Navigation