Results for 'Quantifier restriction'

996 found
Order:
See also
  1.  9
    Quantifier Domain Restriction, Hidden Variables and Variadic Functions.Andrei Moldovan - 2016 - Organon F: Medzinárodný Časopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu 3 (23):384-404.
    In this paper I discuss two objections raised against von Fintel’s (1994) and Stanley and Szabó’s (2000a) hidden variable approach to quantifier domain restriction (QDR). One of them concerns utterances of sentences involving quantifiers for which no contextual domain restriction is needed, and the other concerns multiple quantified contexts. I look at various ways in which the approaches could be amended to avoid these problems, and I argue that they fail. I conclude that we need a more (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  45
    Explaining Quantifier Restriction: Reply to Ben-Yami.Dag Westerståhl - 2012 - Logique Et Analyse 55 (217):109-120.
    This is a reply to H. Ben-Yami, 'Generalized quantifiers, and beyond' (this journal, 2009), where he argues that standard GQ theory does not explain why natural language quantifiers have a restricted domain of quantification. I argue, on the other hand, that although GQ theory gives no deep explanation of this fact, it does give a sort of explanation, whereas Ben-Yami's suggested alternative is no improvement.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3. Definiteness, Contextual Domain Restriction, and Quantifier Structure: A Crosslinguistic Perspective.Anastasia Giannakidou - unknown
    In this paper, we present a theory of interaction between definiteness and quantifier structure, where the definite determiner (D) performs the function of contextually restricting the domain of quantificational determiners (Qs). Our motivating data come from Greek and Basque, where D appears to compose with the Q itself. Similar compositions are found in Hungarian and Bulgarian. Following earlier work (Giannakidou 2004, Etxeberria 2005, Etxeberria and Giannakidou 2009) we define a domain restricting function DDR, in which D modifies the Q (...)
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. On Quantifier Domain Restriction.Jason Stanley & Zoltán Gendler Szabó - 2000 - Mind and Language 15 (2-3):219--61.
  5.  79
    On Quantifier Domain Restriction.Jason Stanley & Zoltan Gendler Szabó - 2000 - Mind and Language 15 (2-3):219-261.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   163 citations  
  6.  27
    Underdetermination, Domain Restriction, and Theory Choice.Mark Bowker - 2019 - Mind and Language 34 (2):205-220.
    It is often possible to know what a speaker intends to communicate without knowing what they intend to say. In such cases, speakers need not intend to say anything at all. Stanley and Szabó's influential survey of possible analysis of quantifier domain restriction is, therefore, incomplete and the arguments made by Clapp and Buchanan against Truth Conditional Compositionality and propositional speaker-meaning are flawed. Two theories should not always be viewed as incompatible when they associate the same utterance with (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. The Reference Book.John Hawthorne & David Manley - 2012 - Oxford University Press.
    This book critically examines some widespread views about the semantic phenomenon of reference and the cognitive phenomenon of singular thought. It begins with a defense of the view that neither is tied to a special relation of causal or epistemic acquaintance. It then challenges the alleged semantic rift between definite and indefinite descriptions on the one hand, and names and demonstratives on the other—a division that has been motivated in part by appeals to considerations of acquaintance. Drawing on recent work (...)
  8.  19
    Triggering Domain Restriction.Poppy Mankowitz - forthcoming - Mind and Language.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  92
    Counting Stages.Emanuel Viebahn - 2013 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (2):311-324.
    This paper defends stage theory against the argument from diachronic counting. It argues that stage theorists can appeal to quantifier domain restriction in order to accommodate intuitions about diachronic counting sentences. Two approaches involving domain restriction are discussed. According to the first, domains of counting are usually restricted to stages at the time of utterance. This approach explains intuitions in many cases, but is theoretically costly and delivers wrong counts if diachronic counting is combined with fission or (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  10.  52
    Impossible Interpretations, Impossible Demands.Francesco Pupa - 2015 - Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (3):269-287.
    While there has been much ado about the innumerable ways a speaker can alter the reach of her quantifier phrases, little fuss has been made over the fact that some forms of alteration are, as it were, impossible to pull off. These impossible interpretations cast a shadow over both syntactic and free enrichment approaches to the phenomenon of quantifier domain restriction. Indeed, I argue that these impossible interpretations help to undermine the presupposition that domain restriction is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  11. Incomplete Descriptions and the Underdetermination Problem.Andrei Moldovan - 2015 - Research in Language 13 (4):352–367.
    The purpose of this paper is to discuss two phenomena related to the semantics of definite descriptions: that of incomplete uses of descriptions, and that of the underdetermination of referential uses of descriptions. The Russellian theorist has a way of accounting for incomplete uses of descriptions by appealing to an account of quantifier domain restriction, such as the one proposed in Stanley and Szabó (2000a). But, I argue, the Russellian is not the only one in a position to (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. If-Clauses and Probability Operators.Paul Égré & Mikaël Cozic - 2011 - Topoi 30 (1):17-29.
    Adams’ thesis is generally agreed to be linguistically compelling for simple conditionals with factual antecedent and consequent. We propose a derivation of Adams’ thesis from the Lewis- Kratzer analysis of if-clauses as domain restrictors, applied to probability operators. We argue that Lewis’s triviality result may be seen as a result of inexpressibility of the kind familiar in generalized quantifier theory. Some implications of the Lewis- Kratzer analysis are presented concerning the assignment of probabilities to compounds of conditionals.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  13.  46
    On Contextual Domain Restriction in Categorial Grammar.Erich Rast - 2013 - Synthese 190 (12):2085-2115.
    Abstract -/- Quantifier domain restriction (QDR) and two versions of nominal restriction (NR) are implemented as restrictions that depend on a previously introduced interpreter and interpretation time in a two-dimensional semantic framework on the basis of simple type theory and categorial grammar. Against Stanley (2002) it is argued that a suitable version of QDR can deal with superlatives like tallest. However, it is shown that NR is needed to account for utterances when the speaker intends to convey (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  14.  76
    Response.John Hawthorne & David Manley - 2014 - Mind and Language 29 (4):499-510.
    We are very grateful to our critics for their kind words and thoughtful engagementwith The Reference Book (hereafter TRB), and also to the editors of Mind & Language for the opportunity to respond. We’ll start our reply by sketching the book’s positive thesis about specific noun phrases and names. In §2 we’ll relate the traditional semantic category we call ‘reference’ to semantic taxonomies given in terms of mechanisms of denotation. In §3, we’ll turn to acquaintance constraints on reference and singular (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  15.  56
    Bare Quantifiers?Hanoch Ben-Yami - 2014 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 95 (2):175-188.
    In a series of publications I have claimed that by contrast to standard formal languages, quantifiers in natural language combine with a general term to form a quantified argument, in which the general term's role is to determine the domain or plurality over which the quantifier ranges. In a recent paper Zoltán Gendler Szabó tried to provide a counterexample to this analysis and derived from it various conclusions concerning quantification in natural language, claiming it is often ‘bare’. I show (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  13
    Context and Quantifier Domain.Marco Ruffino - 2009 - Manuscrito 32 (1):283-307.
    There are some salient explanatory models for the semantic phenomenon known as quantifier domain restriction. Each of these models sees the context of utterance as playing a different role. A particularly clear and helpful way of organizing the issue is offered by Stanley and Szabó , who distinguish three kinds of approaches, and argue for one of them in particular . In this paper, I argue that neither Stanley and Szabó’s arguments against the rival approaches nor their arguments (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17.  12
    Quantifier Expressions and Information Structure.Poppy Mankowitz - 2019 - Dissertation, St. Andrews
    Linguists and philosophers of language have shown increasing interest in the expressions that refer to quantifiers: determiners like ‘every’ and ‘many’, in addition to determiner phrases like ‘some king’ and ‘no cat’. This thesis addresses several puzzles where the way we understand quantifier expressions depends on features that go beyond standard truth conditional semantic meaning. One puzzle concerns the fact that it is often natural to understand ‘Every king is in the yard’ as being true if all of the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  27
    When “All the Five Circles” Are Four: New Exercises in Domain Restriction.Bart Geurts & Bob van Tiel - 2016 - Topoi 35 (1):109-122.
    The domain of a quantifier is determined by a variety of factors, which broadly speaking fall into two types. On the one hand, the context of utterance plays a role: if the focus of attention is on a particular collection of kangaroos, for example, then “Q kangaroos” is likely to range over the individuals in that set. On the other hand, the utterance itself will help to establish the quantificational domain, inter alia through presuppositions triggered within the sentence. In (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  19. A Problem for Predicativism Not Solved by Predicativism.Anders J. Schoubye - forthcoming - Semantics and Pragmatics.
    In 'The Reference Book' (2012), Hawthorne and Manley observe the following contrast between (1) and (2): -/- (1) In every race John won. (2) In every race, the colt won. -/- The name 'John' in (1) must intuitively refer to the same single individual for each race. However, the description 'the colt' in (2) has a co-varying reading, i.e. a reading where for each race it refers to a different colt. This observation is a prima facie problem for proponents of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20.  53
    Domain Restriction and the Arguments of Quantificational Determiners.Anastasia Giannakidou - manuscript
    Classical generalized quantifier (GQ) theory posits that quantificational determiners (Q-dets) combine with a nominal argument of type et, a first order predicate, to form a GQ. In a recent paper, Matthewson (2001) challenges this position by arguing that the domain of a Q-det is not of type et, but e, an entity. In this paper, I defend the classical GQ view, and argue that the data that motivated Matthewson’s revision actually suggest that the domain set can, and indeed in (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  21. Quantifier Domain Selection and Pseudo-Scope.Kai von Fintel - unknown
    * This work has been evolving for a while now. Some parts trace back to the few pages on the context-dependency of quantifiers in my dissertation. Reading Recanati’s paper on domains of discourse made me rethink some of my earlier conclusions without in the end actually changing them much. Other parts formed the material for several discussions in my seminar on context-dependency at MIT in the fall of 1995, which included several sessions exploring the issues raised in an early version (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  22.  3
    When “All the Five Circles” Are Four: New Exercises in Domain Restriction.Bob Tiel & Bart Geurts - 2016 - Topoi 35 (1):109-122.
    The domain of a quantifier is determined by a variety of factors, which broadly speaking fall into two types. On the one hand, the context of utterance plays a role: if the focus of attention is on a particular collection of kangaroos, for example, then “Q kangaroos” is likely to range over the individuals in that set. On the other hand, the utterance itself will help to establish the quantificational domain, inter alia through presuppositions triggered within the sentence. In (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23.  48
    Guards, Bounds, and Generalized Semantics.Johan van Benthem - 2005 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 14 (3):263-279.
    Some initial motivations for the Guarded Fragment still seem of interest in carrying its program further. First, we stress the equivalence between two perspectives: (a) satisfiability on standard models for guarded first-order formulas, and (b) satisfiability on general assignment models for arbitrary first-order formulas. In particular, we give a new straightforward reduction from the former notion to the latter. We also show how a perspective shift to general assignment models provides a new look at the fixed-point extension LFP(FO) of first-order (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  24. Quantifier Variance and the Collapse Argument.Jared Warren - 2015 - Philosophical Quarterly 65 (259):241-253.
    Recently a number of works in meta-ontology have used a variant of J.H. Harris's collapse argument in the philosophy of logic as an argument against Eli Hirsch's quantifier variance. There have been several responses to the argument in the literature, but none of them have identified the central failing of the argument, viz., the argument has two readings: one on which it is sound but doesn't refute quantifier variance and another on which it is unsound. The central lesson (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  25. What Do Quantifier Particles Do?Anna Szabolcsi - 2015 - Linguistics and Philosophy 38 (2):159-204.
    In many languages, the same particles that form quantifier words also serve as connectives, additive and scalar particles, question markers, roots of existential verbs, and so on. Do these have a unified semantics, or do they merely bear a family resemblance? Are they aided by silent operators in their varied roles―if yes, what operators? I dub the particles “quantifier particles” and refer to them generically with capitalized versions of the Japanese morphemes. I argue that both MO and KA (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  26.  97
    Sticky Situations: 'Force' and Quantifier Domains.Matthew Mandelkern & Jonathan Phillips - forthcoming - Semantics and Linguistic Theory 28.
    When do we judge that someone was forced to do what they did? One relatively well-established finding is that subjects tend to judge that agents were not forced to do actions when those actions violate norms. A surprising discovery of Young & Phillips 2011 is that this effect seems to disappear when we frame the relevant ‘force’-claim in the active rather than passive voice ('X forced Y to φ ' vs. 'Y was forced to φ by X'). Young and Phillips (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27.  87
    Quantifier Variance Dissolved.Suki Finn & Otávio Bueno - 2018 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 82:289-307.
    Quantifier variance faces a number of difficulties. In this paper we first formulate the view as holding that the meanings of the quantifiers may vary, and that languages using different quantifiers may be charitably translated into each other. We then object to the view on the basis of four claims: (i) quantifiers cannot vary their meaning extensionally by changing the domain of quantification; (ii) quantifiers cannot vary their meaning intensionally without collapsing into logical pluralism; (iii) quantifier variance is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  28.  18
    Singleton Indefinites.R. Schwarzschild - 2002 - Journal of Semantics 19 (3):289-314.
    I investigate the possibility that the apparent unique scope‐taking abilities of indefinites can be explained in terms of quantifier domain restriction, without departing from the classical view of indefinites as existential quantifiers over individuals whose scope is syntactically constrained in the same way as other quantifiers. The key idea is that when the domain of a quantifier is reduced to a singleton set, it becomes effectively scopeless. Indefinites, on this view, are freer than other quantifiers to make (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  29. Quantifier Variance and Indefinite Extensibility.Jared Warren - 2017 - Philosophical Review 126 (1):81-122.
    This essay clarifies quantifier variance and uses it to provide a theory of indefinite extensibility that I call the variance theory of indefinite extensibility. The indefinite extensibility response to the set-theoretic paradoxes sees each argument for paradox as a demonstration that we have come to a different and more expansive understanding of ‘all sets’. But indefinite extensibility is philosophically puzzling: extant accounts are either metasemantically suspect in requiring mysterious mechanisms of domain expansion, or metaphysically suspect in requiring nonstandard assumptions (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  30. Situation Pronouns in Determiner Phrases.Florian Schwarz - 2012 - Natural Language Semantics 20 (4):431-475.
    It is commonly argued that natural language has the expressive power of quantifying over intensional entities, such as times, worlds, or situations. A standard way of modelling this assumes that there are unpronounced but syntactically represented variables of the corresponding type. Not all that much as has been said, however, about the exact syntactic location of these variables. Meanwhile, recent work has highlighted a number of problems that arise because the interpretive options for situation pronouns seem to be subject to (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  31.  44
    Exceptions to Generics: Where Vagueness, Context Dependence and Modality Interact.Yael Greenberg - 2007 - Journal of Semantics 24 (2):131-167.
    This paper deals with the exceptions-tolerance property of generic sentences with indefinite singular and bare plural subjects (IS and BP generics, respectively) and with the way this property is connected to some well-known observations about felicity differences between the two types of generics (e.g. Lawler's 1973, Madrigals are popular vs. #A madrigal is popular). I show that whereas both IS and BP generics tolerate exceptional and contextually irrelevant individuals and situations in a strikingly similar way, which indicates the existence of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  32.  9
    Does Calorie Restriction in Primates Increase Lifespan? Revisiting Studies on Macaques and Mouse Lemurs.Eric Le Bourg - 2018 - Bioessays 40 (10):1800111.
    The effects of calorie restriction have now been studied in two non‐human primates, the macaque Macaca mulatta and the mouse lemur Microcebus murinus. The study on lemurs and one of the two studies on macaques have reported a lifespan increase. In this review, I argue that these results are better explained by a lifespan decrease in the control group because of a bad diet and/or overfeeding, rather than by a real lifespan increase in calorie‐restricted animals. If these results can (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  33.  45
    A Unified Approach to Split Scope.Klaus Abels & Luisa Martí - 2010 - Natural Language Semantics 18 (4):435-470.
    The goal of this paper is to propose a unified approach to the split scope readings of negative indefinites, comparative quantifiers, and numerals. There are two main observations that justify this approach. First, split scope shows the same kinds of restrictions across these different quantifiers. Second, split scope always involves low existential force. In our approach, following Sauerland, natural language determiner quantifiers are quantifiers over choice functions, of type <<,t>,t>. In split readings, the quantifier over choice functions scopes above (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  34. On the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.Brendan Gillon - 2008 - Synthese 165 (3):373-384.
    This paper addresses two questions: what is the distinction between semantics and pragmatics? And why is this distinction important? These questions are discussed in light of the central explanatory goal of linguistics and in relation to the phenomenon of context sensitivity, as illustrated by relational words with implicit arguments and by so-called quantifier domain restriction. It is concluded that context sensitivity is, in the former case, grammatical or lexical and, in the latter case, neither.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  35. Quantifier Words and Their Multifunctional(?) Parts.Anna Szabolcsi, James Doh Whang & Vera Zu - 2014 - Language and Linguistics 15 (1).
    Formal semantic analyses often take words to be minimal building blocks for the purposes of compositionality. But various recent theories of morphology and syntax have converged on the view that there is no demarcation line corresponding to the word level. The same conclusion has emerged from the compositional semantics of superlatives. In the spirit of extending compositionality below the word level, this paper explores how a small set of particles (Japanese KA and MO, Chinese DOU, and Hungarian VALA/VAGY, MIND, and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  36.  72
    Anomaly and Quantification.James R. Shaw - 2015 - Noûs 49 (1):147-176.
    I argue for two theses about semantically anomalous utterances (more commonly called "category mistakes") like "sequestered slaps reel evergreen rights". First, semantic anomaly generates a unique form of semantically enforced quantifier domain restriction. Second, the best explanation for why anomaly interacts with quantifiers in this way is that anomalous utterances are truth-valueless. After arguing for these points, I trace out two consequences these theses have in semantics and logic. First, I argue they motivate a trivalent semantics on which (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  37.  71
    ‘Nobody Loves Me’: Quantification and Context.Claudia Bianchi - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 130 (2):377 - 397.
    In my paper, I present two competing perspectives on the foundational problem (as opposed to the descriptive problem) of quantifier domain restriction: the objective perspective on context (OPC) and the intentional perspective on context (IPC). According to OPC, the relevant domain for a quantified sentence is determined by objective facts of the context of utterance. In contrast, according to IPC, we must consider certain features of the speaker’s intention in order to determine the proposition expressed. My goal is (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  38. On the Logic of Quantifier Variance.Marcus Rossberg - manuscript
    Eli Hirsch recently suggested the metaontological doctrine of so-called "quantifier variance", according to which ontological disputes—e.g. concerning the question whether arbitrary, possibly scattered, mereological fusions exist, in the sense that these are recognised as objects proper in our ontology—can be defused as insubstantial. His proposal is that the meaning of the quanti er `there exists' varies in such debates: according to one opponent in this dispute, some existential statement claiming the existence of, e.g., a scattered object is true, according (...)
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39.  12
    The Role of Quantifier Alternations in Cut Elimination.Philipp Gerhardy - 2005 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 46 (2):165-171.
    Extending previous results from work on the complexity of cut elimination for the sequent calculus LK, we discuss the role of quantifier alternations and develop a measure to describe the complexity of cut elimination in terms of quantifier alternations in cut formulas and contractions on such formulas.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  40. Conversational Implicature, Thought, and Communication.Jeff Speaks - 2008 - Mind and Language 23 (1):107–122.
    Some linguistic phenomena can occur in uses of language in thought, whereas others only occur in uses of language in communication. I argue that this distinction can be used as a test for whether a linguistic phenomenon can be explained via Grice’s theory of conversational implicature. I argue further, on the basis of this test, that conversational implicature cannot be used to explain quantifier domain restriction or apparent substitution failures involving coreferential names, but that it must be used (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  41.  35
    A New Look at the ‘Generic Overgeneralisation’ Effect.Dimitra Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, Linnaea Stockall & Napoleon Katsos - 2017 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy:1-27.
    While generic generalisations have been studied by linguists and philosophers for decades, they have only recently become the focus of concentrated interest by cognitive and developmental psychologists, who propose the generics-as-default view. In this paper we focus on the ‘Generic Overgeneralisation’ effect proposed by Leslie and colleagues and the native speaker judgments that have been used to support it, and by extension, the generics-as-default view. We take a step back to look at the history of the GOG effect in order (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42.  38
    The Scope of Even and Quantifier Raising.Kimiko Nakanishi - 2012 - Natural Language Semantics 20 (2):115-136.
    This paper addresses the question of whether the preverbal even (VP-even) embedded in a nonfinite clause can take wide scope (e.g., Bill refused to even drink WATER). The paper presents novel evidence for wide scope VP-even that is independent of the presuppositions of even. The evidence is based on examples of antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), where embedded VP-even associates with a nominal constituent (or part of it) that raises out of the embedded clause via quantifier raising. Assuming that even must (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  43.  13
    Amalgamation Through Quantifier Elimination for Varieties of Commutative Residuated Lattices.Enrico Marchioni - 2012 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 51 (1-2):15-34.
    This work presents a model-theoretic approach to the study of the amalgamation property for varieties of semilinear commutative residuated lattices. It is well-known that if a first-order theory T enjoys quantifier elimination in some language L, the class of models of the set of its universal consequences ${\rm T_\forall}$ has the amalgamation property. Let ${{\rm Th}(\mathbb{K})}$ be the theory of an elementary subclass ${\mathbb{K}}$ of the linearly ordered members of a variety ${\mathbb{V}}$ of semilinear commutative residuated lattices. We show (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  44. Knowability, Possibility and Paradox.Berit Brogaard & Joe Salerno - 2008 - In Vincent Hendricks (ed.), New Waves in Epistemology. Palgrave-Macmillan.
    The paradox of knowability threatens to draw a logical equivalence between the believable claim that all truths are knowable and the obviously false claim that all truths are known. In this paper we evaluate prominent proposals for resolving the paradox of knowability. For instance, we argue that Neil Tennant’s restriction strategy, which aims principally to restrict the main quantifier in ‘all truths are knowable’, does not get to the heart of the problem since there are knowability paradoxes that (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  45.  47
    Locke's Waste Restriction and His Strong Voluntarism.Helga Varden - 2006 - Locke Studies 6:127-141.
    This paper argues that there is a conflict between two principles informing Locke’s political philosophy, namely his waste restriction and his strong voluntarism. Locke’s waste restriction is proposed as a necessary, enforceable restriction upon rightful private property holdings and it yields arguments to preserve and redistribute natural resources. Locke’s strong voluntarism is proposed as the liberal ideal of political obligations. It expresses Locke’s view that each individual has a natural political power, which can only be transferred to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46.  14
    Quantifier Elimination for Neocompact Sets.H. Jerome Keisler - 1998 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (4):1442-1472.
    We shall prove quantifier elimination theorems for neocompact formulas, which define neocompact sets and are built from atomic formulas using finite disjunctions, infinite conjunctions, existential quantifiers, and bounded universal quantifiers. The neocompact sets were first introduced to provide an easy alternative to nonstandard methods of proving existence theorems in probability theory, where they behave like compact sets. The quantifier elimination theorems in this paper can be applied in a general setting to show that the family of neocompact sets (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  47.  22
    Distributive Terms, Truth, and the Port Royal Logic.John N. Martin - 2013 - History and Philosophy of Logic 34 (2):133-154.
    The paper shows that in the Art of Thinking Arnauld and Nicole introduce a new way to state the truth-conditions for categorical propositions. The definition uses two new ideas: the notion of distributive or, as they call it, universal term, which they abstract from distributive supposition in medieval logic, and their own version of what is now called a conservative quantifier in general quantification theory. Contrary to the interpretation of Jean-Claude Parienté and others, the truth-conditions do not require the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48.  82
    Particulars.Johanna Seibt - 2010 - In Roberto Poli & Johanna Seibt (eds.), Theories and Applications of Ontology. Springer. pp. 23--55.
    According to the standard view of particularity, an entity is a particular just in case it necessarily has a unique spatial location at any time of its existence. That the basic entities of the world we speak about in common sense and science are particular entities in this sense is the thesis of “foundational particularism,” a theoretical intuition that has guided Western ontological research from its beginnings to the present day. The main aim of this paper is to review the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  49.  5
    Quantifier Elimination for a Class of Intuitionistic Theories.Ben Ellison, Jonathan Fleischmann, Dan McGinn & Wim Ruitenburg - 2008 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 49 (3):281-293.
    From classical, Fraïissé-homogeneous, ($\leq \omega$)-categorical theories over finite relational languages, we construct intuitionistic theories that are complete, prove negations of classical tautologies, and admit quantifier elimination. We also determine the intuitionistic universal fragments of these theories.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  50.  34
    Almost Everywhere Elimination of Probability Quantifiers.H. Jerome Keisler & Wafik Boulos Lotfallah - 2009 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 74 (4):1121 - 1142.
    We obtain an almost everywhere quantifier elimination for (the noncritical fragment of) the logic with probability quantifiers, introduced by the first author in [10]. This logic has quantifiers like $\exists ^{ \ge 3/4} y$ which says that "for at least 3/4 of all y". These results improve upon the 0-1 law for a fragment of this logic obtained by Knyazev [11]. Our improvements are: 1. We deal with the quantifier $\exists ^{ \ge r} y$ , where y is (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 996