Who needs (to assume) Hume's principle?


Authors
Abstract
Neo-logicism uses definitions and Hume's Principle to derive arithmetic in second-order logic. This paper investigates how much arithmetic can be derived using definitions alone, without any additional principle such as Hume's.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,363
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reals by Abstraction.Bob Hale - 2000 - Philosophia Mathematica 8 (2):100--123.
Is Hume's Principle Analytic?Crispin Wright - 2001 - In Bob Hale & Crispin Wright (eds.), Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. Oxford University Press. pp. 307-333.
Finitude and Hume's Principle.Richard G. Heck Jr - 1997 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (6):589 - 617.
Aristotelian Logic, Axioms, and Abstraction.Roy T. Cook - 2003 - Philosophia Mathematica 11 (2):195-202.
The Logic in Logicism.Alexander Bird - 1997 - Dialogue 36 (2):341--60.
Hume = Small Hume.Jeffrey Ketland - 2002 - Analysis 62 (1):92–93.
On Finite Hume.Fraser Macbride - 2000 - Philosophia Mathematica 8 (2):150-159.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
49 ( #216,154 of 2,445,401 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #457,259 of 2,445,401 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes