Is propositional calculus categorical?

Abstract
According to the standard definition, a first-order theory is categorical if all its models are isomorphic. The idea behind this definition obviously is that of capturing semantic notions in axiomatic terms: to be categorical is to be, in this respect, successful. Thus, for example, we may want to axiomatically delimit the concept of natural number, as it is given by the pre-theoretic semantic intuitions and reconstructed by the standard model. The well-known results state that this cannot be done within first-order logic, but it can be done within second-order one. Now let us consider the following question: can we axiomatically capture the semantic concept of conjunction? Such question, to be sure, does not make sense within the standard framework: we cannot construe it as asking whether we can form a first-order (or, for that matter, whatever-order) theory with an extralogical binary propositional operator so that its only model (up to isomorphism) maps the operator on the intended binary truth-function. The obvious reason is that the framework of standard logic does not allow for extralogical constants of this type. But of course there is also a deeper reason: an existence of a constant with this semantics is presupposed by the very definition of the framework1. Hence the question about the axiomatic capturability of concunction, if we can make sense of it at all, cannot be asked within the framework of standard logic, we would have to go to a more abstract level. To be able to make sense of the question we would have to think about a propositional ‘proto-language’, with uninterpreted logical constants, and to try to search out axioms which would fix the denotations of the constants as the intended truth-functions. Can we do this? It might seem that the answer to this question is yielded by the completeness theorem for the standard propositional calculus: this theorem states that the axiomatic delimitation of the calculus and the semantic delimitation converge to the same result..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,169
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
Sequential Dynamic Logic.Alexander Bochman & Dov M. Gabbay - 2012 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 21 (3):279-298.
Meaning and Inference.Jaroslav Peregrin - 2003 - In Timothy Childers & Ondrej Majer (eds.), Logica Yearbook 2002. Filosofia.
What is an Inference Rule?Ronald Fagin, Joseph Y. Halpern & Moshe Y. Vardi - 1992 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (3):1018-1045.
The Abstract Variable-Binding Calculus.Don Pigozzi & Antonino Salibra - 1995 - Studia Logica 55 (1):129 - 179.
The Modal Object Calculus and its Interpretation.Edward N. Zalta - 1997 - In M. de Rijke (ed.), Advances in Intensional Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 249--279.
Many-Valued Logics.Nicholas J. J. Smith - 2012 - In Gillian Russell & Delia Graff Fara (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. Routledge. pp. 636--51.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
46 ( #116,306 of 2,191,856 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #144,664 of 2,191,856 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature