“Second-order Logic” in Anderson, C.A. and Zeleny, M., Eds. Logic, Meaning, and Computation: Essays in Memory of Alonzo Church. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001. Pp. 61–76. -/- Abstract. This expository article focuses on the fundamental differences between second- order logic and first-order logic. It is written entirely in ordinary English without logical symbols. It employs second-order propositions and second-order reasoning in a natural way to illustrate the fact that second-order logic is (...) actually a familiar part of our traditional intuitive logical framework and that it is not an artificial formalism created by specialists for technical purposes. To illustrate some of the main relationships between second-order logic and first-order logic, this paper introduces basic logic, a kind of zero-order logic, which is more rudimentary than first-order and which is transcended by first-order in the same way that first-order is transcended by second-order. The heuristic effectiveness and the historical importance of second-order logic are reviewed in the context of the contemporary debate over the legitimacy of second-order logic. Rejection of second-order logic is viewed as radical: an incipient paradigm shift involving radical repudiation of a part of our scientific tradition, a tradition that is defended by classical logicians. But it is also viewed as reactionary: as being analogous to the reactionary repudiation of symbolic logic by supporters of “Aristotelian” traditional logic. But even if “genuine” logic comes to be regarded as excluding second-order reasoning, which seems less likely today than fifty years ago, its effectiveness as a heuristic instrument will remain and its importance for understanding the history of logic and mathematics will not be diminished. Second-order logic may someday be gone, but it will never be forgotten. Technical formalisms have been avoided entirely in an effort to reach a wide audience, but every effort has been made to limit the inevitable sacrifice of rigor. People who do not know second-order logic cannot understand the modern debate over its legitimacy and they are cut-off from the heuristic advantages of second-order logic. And, what may be worse, they are cut-off from an understanding of the history of logic and thus are constrained to have distorted views of the nature of the subject. As Aristotle first said, we do not understand a discipline until we have seen its development. It is a truism that a person's conceptions of what a discipline is and of what it can become are predicated on their conception of what it has been. (shrink)

Zero pronominals challenge Type Logical Grammar in two ways. One, TLG displays a linear resource management regime for semantic composition, meaning that pronominals call for special treatment if they want to do resource multiplication. Two, as a grammar of lexicalism, TLG applies to phonologically realized lexical entries only, illegitimating the phonetically null items during syntactic derivation. Jägor extends the inventory of category-forming connectives of TLG by a third kind of implication that creates categories of anaphoric items and solves the (...) first problem above. This article goes a step further to tackle the second one. In order to formalize the constructions with zero pronominals, we design a ternary category A B C and include the latter into Jägor’s system. The proposed system is proof-theoretically well-behaved. It is complete, sound, and decidable. More importantly, zero pronominals of various forms can be derived in the system. (shrink)

We show that a 0–1 law holds for propositional modal logic, both for structure validity and frame validity. In the case of structure validity, the result follows easily from the well-known 0–1 law for first-order logic. However, our proof gives considerably more information. It leads to an elegant axiomatization for almost-sure structure validity and to sharper complexity bounds. Since frame validity can be reduced to a Π11 formula, the 0–1 law for frame validity helps delineate when 0–1 (...) laws exist for second-order logics. (shrink)

We show that a 0–1 law holds for propositional modal logic, both for structure validity and frame validity. In the case of structure validity, the result follows easily from the well-known 0–1 law for first-order logic. However, our proof gives considerably more information. It leads to an elegant axiomatization for almost-sure structure validity and to sharper complexity bounds. Since frame validity can be reduced to a Π11 formula, the 0–1 law for frame validity helps delineate when 0–1 (...) laws exist for second-order logics. (shrink)

In 2001, Le Bars proved that there exists an existential monadic second-order sentence such that the probability that it is true on [Formula: see text] does not converge and conjectured that, for EMSO sentences with two first-order variables, the zero–one law holds. In this paper, we prove that the conjecture fails for [Formula: see text], and give new examples of sentences with fewer variables without convergence.

I read Stefan Collini’s What are Universities For? last week with very mixed feelings. In the past, I’ve much admired his polemical essays on the REF, “impact”, the Browne Report, etc. in the London Review of Books and elsewhere: they speak to my heart. If you don’t know those essays, you can get some of their flavour from his latest article in the Guardian yesterday. But I found the book a disappointment. Perhaps the trouble is that Collini is too decent, (...) too high-minded, has too unrealistically exalted a view about what actually happens in universities which is too coloured by attitudes appropriate to the traditional humanities. And he is optimistic to the point of fantasy if he thinks that people are so susceptible to “the romance of ideas and the power of beauty” that they will want, or can be brought to want, lots and lots of universities in order to promote the ideas (as if they would suppose that the task of “conserving, understanding, extending and handing on to subsequent generations the intellectual, scientific, and artistic heritage of mankind” was clearly ill-served when there were only forty universities in England, as opposed to a hundred and whatever). (shrink)

We extend BDDs for plain propositional logic to the fragment of first order logic, consisting of quantifier free logic with zero, successor and equality. We allow equations with zero and successor in the nodes of a BDD, and call such objects -BDDs. We extend the notion of Ordered BDDs in the presence of zero, successor and equality. -BDDs can be transformed to equivalent Ordered -BDDs by applying a number of rewrite rules until a (...) normal form is reached. All paths in these ordered -BDDs represent satisfiable conjunctions. The major advantage of transforming a formula to an equivalent Ordered -BDD is that on the latter it can be observed in constant time whether the formula is a tautology, a contradiction, or just satisfiable. (shrink)

In [6] proof tableau formulations were given of the implication/negation fragments of the important zero-order relevant logics E and R and the semirelevant logic RM . The main purpose of this paper then, is to extend results by giving proof tableau formulations of the distribution-free fragments of E, R and RM and of their first order extensions EQ, RQ and RMQ. Where X is one of these logics, we shall follow [13] in calling its distribution-free fragment (...) OX – the ‘O’ standing for ‘ortho’ which is meant to signify the kinship of these logics to quantum logics or ortho-logics as they now tend to be known. Hence in what follows we shall refer to the logics OX simply as relevant ortho-logics. (shrink)

The previous Part I of the paper discusses the option of the Gödel incompleteness statement (1931: whether “Satz VI” or “Satz X”) to be an axiom due to the pair of the axiom of induction in arithmetic and the axiom of infinity in set theory after interpreting them as logical negations to each other. The present Part II considers the previous Gödel’s paper (1930) (and more precisely, the negation of “Satz VII”, or “the completeness theorem”) as a necessary condition for (...) granting the Gödel incompleteness statement to be a theorem just as the statement itself, to be an axiom. Then, the “completeness paper” can be interpreted as relevant to Hilbert mathematics, according to which mathematics and reality as well as arithmetic and set theory are rather entangled or complementary rather than mathematics to obey reality able only to create models of the latter. According to that, both papers (1930; 1931) can be seen as advocating Russell’s logicism or the intensional propositional logic versus both extensional arithmetic and set theory. Reconstructing history of philosophy, Aristotle’s logic and doctrine can be opposed to those of Plato or the pre-Socratic schools as establishing ontology or intensionality versus extensionality. Husserl’s phenomenology can be analogically realized including and particularly as philosophy of mathematics. One can identify propositional logic and set theory by virtue of Gödel’s completeness theorem (1930: “Satz VII”) and even both and arithmetic in the sense of the “compactness theorem” (1930: “Satz X”) therefore opposing the latter to the “incompleteness paper” (1931). An approach identifying homomorphically propositional logic and set theory as the same structure of Boolean algebra, and arithmetic as the “half” of it in a rigorous construction involving information and its unit of a bit. Propositional logic and set theory are correspondingly identified as the shared zero-order logic of the class of all first-order logics and the class at issue correspondingly. Then, quantum mechanics does not need any quantum logics, but only the relation of propositional logic, set theory, arithmetic, and information: rather a change of the attitude into more mathematical, philosophical, and speculative than physical, empirical and experimental. Hilbert’s epsilon calculus can be situated in the same framework of the relation of propositional logic and the class of all mathematical theories. The horizon of Part III investigating Hilbert mathematics (i.e. according to the Pythagorean viewpoint about the world as mathematical) versus Gödel mathematics (i.e. the usual understanding of mathematics as all mathematical models of the world external to it) is outlined. (shrink)

This paper offers a modification of Fabrice Correia's and Alexander Skiles' ("Grounding, Essence, and Identity") definition of grounding in terms of generalized identity that extends it to zero-grounding. This definition promises to improve our understanding of zero-grounding by capturing it within the framework of generalized identity and allows an essentialist theory of modality based on Correia's and Skiles' account to resist a recent challenge by Jessica Leech. The latter is achieved by combining the following two ideas: (1) Some (...) necessities are grounded in truths about zero-grounding, and (2) at least some identity truths are zero-grounded. Finally, some advantages of the zero-grounding approach over Correia's and Skiles' recent definition of necessity in terms of generalized identity and logical consequence are argued for. (shrink)

Gravitation is interpreted to be an “ontomathematical” force or interaction rather than an only physical one. That approach restores Newton’s original design of universal gravitation in the framework of “The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”, which allows for Einstein’s special and general relativity to be also reinterpreted ontomathematically. The entanglement theory of quantum gravitation is inherently involved also ontomathematically by virtue of the consideration of the qubit Hilbert space after entanglement as the Fourier counterpart of pseudo-Riemannian space. Gravitation can be (...) also interpreted as purely mathematical or logical “force” or “interaction” as a corollary from its ontomathematical (rather than physical) realization. The ontomathematical approach to gravitation is implicit in general relativity equating it to operators in pseudo-Riemannian space obeying the Einstein field equation and also well-known by the “geometrization of physics”. Quantum mechanics shares the same by the separable complex Hilbert space and defining “physical quantity” by the Hermitian operators on it. One can interpret special Minkowski space involved by special relativity and the qubit Hilbert space of quantum information as Fourier counterparts immediately noticing that general relativity means gravitation as the Fourier counterpart of non-Hermitian operators implying non-unitarity and the violation of energy conservation and thus destroying Pauli’s particle paradigm. Since the Standard model obeys it, this explains the impossibility of “quantum gravitation” in any framework conservatively generalizing the Standard model so that it would include gravitation along with electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions. Einstein’s geometrization of gravitation can be continued into a purely mathematical theory of it following Euclid’s realization for geometry to be exhaustively built in a deductive and axiomatic way as well as Riemann’s parametrization of all the class of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries by “space curvature”, then being generalized to Minkowski space as the operators on pseudo-Riemannian space as the Einstein field equation means gravitation. The transition from mathematical gravitation to logical one can rely on the historical lesson of the pair of Lobachevski’s and Riemann’s approaches now “reversely”, i.e., from the latter to the former. Logical gravitation is linkable to Hegel’s dialectical logic and ontological dialectics abandoning their interpretations as a new zero logic substituting classical propionyl logic. The approach of ontomathematics generalizing that of ontology, traceable even to Aristotle’s reformation of Plato’s doctrine, needs Hegel’s doctrine to be formalized as a first-order logic naturally containing Boolean algebra, isomorphic to both classical propositional logic and set theory being the class of all first-order logics, as a sub-logic along with Peano arithmetic as another sub-logic. The first-order logic at issue is called Hilbert arithmetic and elaborated in detail in other papers. It allows for both self-foundation of mathematics to be internally proved as complete and furthermore, quantum mechanics reinterpreted as quantum information to be included by the qubit Hilbert space interpretable in turn as a dual and physical counterpart of Hilbert arithmetic in a narrow sense, that is, both counterparts constitute Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense, being mathematical and physical simultaneously and thus overcoming the Cartesian dualism of “body” gapped from “mind” by an abyss. Then, the proper philosophical interpretation of gravitation to be the fundamental ontomathematical force or interaction overcomes the ridiculous belief of the Big Bang wrongly alleged to be a scientific theory. Ontomathematical gravitation suggests an omnipresent and omnitemporal medium of “God’s” creation “ex nihilo” following only the natural necessity of quantum-information conservation particularly and locally manifested as energy conservation. (shrink)

Each relational structure X has an associated Gaifman graph, which endows X with the properties of a graph. If x is an element of X, let $B_n (x)$ be the ball of radius n around x. Suppose that X is infinite, connected and of bounded degree. A first-order sentence ϕ in the language of X is almost surely true (resp. a. s. false) for finite substructures of X if for every x ∈ X, the fraction of substructures of $B_n (...) (x)$ satisfying ϕ approaches 1 (resp. 0) as n approaches infinity. Suppose further that, for every finite substructure, X has a disjoint isomorphic substructure. Then every ϕ is a. s. true or a. s. false for finite substructures of X. This is one form of the geometric zero-one law. We formulate it also in a form that does not mention the ambient infinite structure. In addition, we investigate various questions related to the geometric zero-one law. (shrink)

Mares and Goldblatt, 163–187, 2006) provided an alternative frame semantics for two quantified extensions of the relevant logic R. In this paper, I show how to extend the Mares-Goldblatt frames to accommodate identity. Simpler frames are provided for two zero-order logics en route to the full logic in order to clarify what is needed for identity and substitution, as opposed to quantification. I close with a comparison of this work with the Fine-Mares models for relevant (...) logics with identity and a discussion of constant and variable domains. (shrink)

This chapter offers an opinionated introduction to higher-order formal languages with an eye towards their applications in metaphysics. A simply relationally typed higher-order language is introduced in four stages: starting with first-order logic, adding first-order predicate abstraction, generalizing to higher-order predicate abstraction, and finally adding higher-order quantification. It is argued that both β-conversion and Universal Instantiation are valid on the intended interpretation of this language. Given these two principles, it is then shown how (...) we can use pure higher-order logic to ask, and begin to answer, metaphysical questions with non-trivial implications. In particular, while we must reject the popular idea that structural differences between sentences correspond to parallel distinctions in the logical structure of extra-linguistic reality, it may still be possible to give a purely logical characterization of objectual aboutness and related notions. (shrink)

JOHN CORCORAN AND WILIAM FRANK. Surprises in logic. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 19 253. Some people, not just beginning students, are at first surprised to learn that the proposition “If zero is odd, then zero is not odd” is not self-contradictory. Some people are surprised to find out that there are logically equivalent false universal propositions that have no counterexamples in common, i. e., that no counterexample for one is a counterexample for the other. Some people (...) would be surprised to find out that in normal first-order logic existential import is quite common: some universals “Everything that is S is P” —actually quite a few—imply their corresponding existentials “Something that is S is P”. Anyway, perhaps contrary to its title, this paper is not a cataloging of surprises in logic but rather about the mistakes that did or might have or might still lead people to think that there are no surprises in logic. The paper cataloging of surprises in logic is on our “to-do” list. -/- ► JOHN CORCORAN AND WILIAM FRANK, Surprises in logic. Philosophy, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-4150, USA E-mail: [email protected] There are many surprises in logic. Peirce gave us a few. Russell gave Frege one. Löwenheim gave Zermelo one. Gödel gave some to Hilbert. Tarski gave us several. When we get a surprise, we are often delighted, puzzled, or skeptical. Sometimes we feel or say “Nice!”, “Wow, I didn’t know that!”, “Is that so?”, or the like. Every surprise belongs to someone. There are no disembodied surprises. Saying there are surprises in logic means that logicians experience surprises doing logic—not that among logical propositions some are intrinsically or objectively “surprising”. The expression “That isn’t surprising” often denigrates logical results. Logicians often aim for surprises. In fact, [1] argues that logic’s potential for surprises helps motivate its study and, indeed, helps justify logic’s existence as a discipline. Besides big surprises that change logicians’ perspectives, the logician’s daily life brings little surprises, e.g. that Gödel’s induction axiom alone implies Robinson’s axiom. Sometimes wild guesses succeed. Sometimes promising ideas fail. Perhaps one of the least surprising things about logic is that it is full of surprises. Against the above is Wittgenstein’s surprising conclusion : “Hence there can never be surprises in logic”. This paper unearths basic mistakes in [2] that might help to explain how Wittgenstein arrived at his false conclusion and why he never caught it. The mistakes include: unawareness that surprise is personal, confusing logicians having certainty with propositions having logical necessity, confusing definitions with criteria, and thinking that facts demonstrate truths. People demonstrate truths using their deductive know-how and their knowledge of facts: facts per se are epistemically inert. [1] JOHN CORCORAN, Hidden consequence and hidden independence. This Bulletin, vol.16, p. 443. [2] LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Kegan Paul, London, 1921. -/-. (shrink)

We investigate the Tukey order in the class of Fσ ideals of subsets of ω. We show that no nontrivial Fσ ideal is Tukey below a Gδ ideal of compact sets. We introduce the notions of flat ideals and gradually flat ideals. We prove a dichotomy theorem for flat ideals isolating gradual flatness as the side of the dichotomy that is structurally good. We give diverse characterizations of gradual flatness among flat ideals using Tukey reductions and games. For example, (...) we show that gradually flat ideals are precisely those flat ideals that are Tukey below the ideal of density zero sets. (shrink)

We study the modal logic M L r of the countable random frame, which is contained in and `approximates' the modal logic of almost sure frame validity, i.e. the logic of those modal principles which are valid with asymptotic probability 1 in a randomly chosen finite frame. We give a sound and complete axiomatization of M L r and show that it is not finitely axiomatizable. Then we describe the finite frames of that logic and show (...) that it has the finite frame property and its satisfiability problem is in EXPTIME. All these results easily extend to temporal and other multi-modal logics. Finally, we show that there are modal formulas which are almost surely valid in the finite, yet fail in the countable random frame, and hence do not follow from the extension axioms. Therefore the analog of Fagin's transfer theorem for almost sure validity in first-order logic fails for modal logic. (shrink)

Abstract.This paper is devoted to a logical and algebraic treatment of conditional probability. The main ideas are the use of non-standard probabilities and of some kind of standard part function in order to deal with the case where the conditioning event has probability zero, and the use of a many-valued modal logic in order to deal probability of an event φ as the truth value of the sentence φ is probable, along the lines of Hájek’s book (...) [H98] and of [EGH96]. To this purpose, we introduce a probabilistic many-valued logic, called FP(SŁΠ), which is sound and complete with respect a class of structures having a non-standard extension [0,1]⋆ of [0,1] as set of truth values. We also prove that the coherence of an assessment of conditional probabilities is equivalent to the coherence of a suitably defined theory over FP(SŁΠ) whose proper axioms reflect the assessment itself. (shrink)

How do people reason about their opponent in turn-taking games? Often, people do not make the decisions that game theory would prescribe. We present a logic that can play a key role in understanding how people make their decisions, by delineating all plausible reasoning strategies in a systematic manner. This in turn makes it possible to construct a corresponding set of computational models in a cognitive architecture. These models can be run and fitted to the participants’ data in terms (...) of decisions, response times, and answers to questions. We validate these claims on the basis of an earlier game-theoretic experiment about the turn-taking game “Marble Drop with Surprising Opponent”, in which the opponent often starts with a seemingly irrational move. We explore two ways of segregating the participants into reasonable “player types”. The first way is based on latent class analysis, which divides the players into three classes according to their first decisions in the game: Random players, Learners, and Expected players, who make decisions consistent with forward induction. The second way is based on participants’ answers to a question about their opponent, classified according to levels of theory of mind: zero-order, first-order and second-order. It turns out that increasing levels of decisions and theory of mind both correspond to increasing success as measured by monetary awards and increasing decision times. Next, we use the logical language to express different kinds of strategies that people apply when reasoning about their opponent and making decisions in turn-taking games, as well as the ‘reasoning types’ reflected in their behavior. Then, we translate the logical formulas into computational cognitive models in the PRIMs architecture. Finally, we run two of the resulting models, corresponding to the strategy of only being interested in one’s own payoff and to the myopic strategy, in which one can only look ahead to a limited number of nodes. It turns out that the participant data fit to the own-payoff strategy, not the myopic one. The article closes the circle from experiments via logic and cognitive modelling back to predictions about new experiments. (shrink)

Numbers. Natural numbers -- Integers -- Real numbers -- Irrational and transcendental numbers -- Funny numbers. Zero -- e : the unnatural natural number -- [Phi] : the golden ratio -- i : the imaginary number -- Writing numbers. Roman numerals -- Egyptian fractions -- Continued fractions -- Logic. Mr. Spock is not logical -- Proofs, truth, and trees : oh my! -- Programming with logic -- Temporal reasoning -- Sets. Cantor's diagonalization : infinity isn't just infinity (...) -- Axiomatic set theory : keep the good, dump the bad -- Models : using sets as the LEGOs of the math world -- Transfinite numbers : counting and ordering infinite sets -- Group theory : finding symmetries with sets -- Mechanical math. Finite state machines : simplicity goes far -- The turing machine -- Pathology and the heart of computing -- Calculus : no, not that calculus- [lambda] calculus -- Numbers, booleans, and recursion -- Types, types, types : modeling [lambda] calculus -- The halting problem. (shrink)

We construct and study structures imitating the field of complex numbers with exponentiation. We give a natural, albeit non first-order, axiomatisation for the corresponding class of structures and prove that the class has a unique model in every uncountable cardinality. This gives grounds to conjecture that the unique model of cardinality continuum is isomorphic to the field of complex numbers with exponentiation.

We investigate the cofinality of the partial order N κ of functions from a regular cardinal κ into the ideal N of Lebesgue measure zero subsets of R. We show that when add(N) = κ and the covering lemma holds with respect to an inner model of GCH, then cf(N κ ) = max {cf(κ κ ), cf([ cf(N)] κ )}. We also give an example to show that the covering assumption cannot be removed.

This paper presents a systematic approach for obtaining results from the area of quantitative investigations in logic and type theory. We investigate the proportion between tautologies (inhabited types) of a given length n against the number of all formulas (types) of length n. We investigate an asymptotic behavior of this fraction. Furthermore, we characterize the relation between number of premises of implicational formula (type) and the asymptotic probability of finding such formula among the all ones. We also deal with (...) a distribution of these asymptotic probabilities. Using the same approach we also prove that the probability that randomly chosen fourth order type (or type of the order not greater than 4), which admits decidable lambda definability problem, is zero. (shrink)

It is well known that there is a correspondence between sets and complete, atomic Boolean algebras (\(\textit{CABA}\)s) taking a set to its power-set and, conversely, a complete, atomic Boolean algebra to its set of atomic elements. Of course, such a correspondence induces an equivalence between the opposite category of \(\textbf{Set}\) and the category of \(\textit{CABA}\)s. We modify this result by taking multialgebras over a signature \(\Sigma\), specifically those whose non-deterministic operations cannot return the empty-set, to \(\textit{CABA}\)s with their zero (...) element removed (which we call a \(\textit{bottomless Boolean algebra}\)) equipped with a structure of \(\Sigma\)-algebra compatible with its order (that we call \(\textit{ord-algebras}\)). Conversely, an ord-algebra over \(\Sigma\) is taken to its set of atomic elements equipped with a structure of multialgebra over \(\Sigma\). This leads to an equivalence between the category of \(\Sigma\)-multialgebras and the category of ord-algebras over \(\Sigma\). The intuition, here, is that if one wishes to do so, non-determinism may be replaced by a sufficiently rich ordering of the underlying structures. (shrink)

This completely self-contained study, widely considered the best book in the field, is intended to serve both as an introduction to quantification theory and as ...

We define a quasi-order on Borel functions from a zero-dimensional Polish space into another that both refines the order induced by the Baire hierarchy of functions and generalises the embeddability order on Borel sets. We study the properties of this quasi-order on continuous functions, and we prove that the closed subsets of a zero-dimensional Polish space are well-quasi-ordered by bi-continuous embeddability.

Inspired by some logical considerations, the paper proposes a novel perspective on the use of two-players zero-sum games in abstract argumentation. The paper first introduces a second-order modal logic, within which all main Dung-style semantics are shown to be formalizable, and then studies the model checking game of this logic. The model checking game is then used to provide a systematic game theoretic proof procedure to test membership with respect to all those semantics formalizable in the (...) logic. The paper discusses this idea in detail and illustrates it by providing a game for the so-called skeptical preferred and skeptical semi-stable semantics. (shrink)

As the title of the present article shows, it highlights the three philosophically integrated areas – (1) pramāṇa-epistemology (theory of comprehensive knowledge involving both perception and inference), (2) logic (although a part of pramāṇa-epistemology, it has two modes, namely, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning), and (3) language (or semantics, i.e. the double negation theory of meaning, which falls under inference). These are interconnected as well as overlapping within the Buddhist mainstream tradition of the process philosophy as opposed to the (...) substantialist philosophy. The same is the case with the three celebrated Buddhist thinkers – Vasubandhu, Dignāga (also spelt as Diññāṇa), and Dharmakīrti – who develop their radical and critical views focusing on these areas in historical-cum-philosophical order. It is worth noting that within the same mainstream Buddhist tradition, each one of the three thinkers picks up the problematic issues from their predecessors – from the Buddha to their immediate predecessors respectively – for their solutions against the backdrop of the two conflicting mainstream traditions – Buddhist and non-Buddhist. The central focus of these thinkers is first to identify the crucial issues, doctrinal principles, terminology, and methodology in their own ways and conceptual frameworks, which generate not only the mutual conflicts in the course of dialogues but also strengthen their positions by means of their new radical ideas, innovations, terminologies, methodologies, and doctrinal principles. As a result, the three selected areas and their crucial issues are explained, elaborated, and interpretated for better understanding. All of which are rooted in the Buddha’s path of wisdom, ethics, and liberation from the human predicament (duḥkha-nivṛtti). In this grand project of the deepest concerns, the Buddha utilized multiple strategies like understanding and controlling the problematic nature of the mind (Pāli citta, manasa) and its concomitance (Pāli cetasika, dhammā) by means of the concentrative meditation (Pāli jhāna, Sanskrit (hereafter Skt., dhyāna), cultivation of knowledge (Pāli vijjā, Skt. vidyā) and conduct/moral purity (Pāli caraṇa, Skt. ācaraṇa), destruction of afflictions/defilements (Pāli kilesa, Skt. kleśa), critical and logical thinking with valid arguments, and so on. His disciples also treat him as the possessor of valid method, arguments, meaning, practice, and purpose (Skt. pramāṇabhūta, the term used by Dignāga). He believed in the common humanity as the community of sufferers and the autonomy of every human being (Pāli attakāra), but strongly rejected the hierarchy of humanity on the basis of caste, birth, and dogmatic religious identity. For these reasons, following the Buddha and his celebrated followers like Vasubandhu, Dignāga, and Dharmakīrti, my task in this article is how to clearly and elaborately discuss the above identified issues and theories, first to understand them for myself and then logically prove the whole process of knowledge and the designed purpose through communication to those who have the intention to hear and understand the framework of common language for their benefits. I wish the readers like students and young teachers benefit from my research work. Further, since my learning of the Tibetan language is zero, but comfortable in Sanskrit and Pāli, I have been heavily dependent on three great modern thinkers who have widely written independently and also translated the Buddhist Tibetan texts, which were translated from the original Sanskrit texts now lost, into English in the areas of Buddhist epistemology, logic, and semantics. These modern scholars are Masaaki Hattori, Shoryo Katsura, and Richard Hayes. Besides them, I have also little benefitted from some other scholars who have worked in the same areas. (shrink)

A first order representation (f.o.r.) in topology is an assignment of finitary relational structures of the same type to topological spaces in such a way that homeomorphic spaces get sent to isomorphic structures. We first define the notions "one f.o.r. is at least as expressive as another relative to a class of spaces" and "one class of spaces is definable in another relative to an f.o.r.", and prove some general statements. Following this we compare some well-known classes of spaces (...) and first order representations. A principal result is that if X and Y are two Tichonov spaces whose posets of zero-sets are elementarily equivalent then their respective rings of bounded continuous real-valued functions satisfy the same positive-universal sentences. The proof of this uses the technique of constructing ultraproducts as direct limits of products in a category theoretic setting. (shrink)

A sentence of first-order logic is satisfiable if it is true in some structure, and finitely satisfiable if it is true in some finite structure. The question arises as to whether there exists an algorithm for determining whether a given formula of first-order logic is satisfiable, or indeed finitely satisfiable. This question was answered negatively in 1936 by Church and Turing (for satisfiability) and in 1950 by Trakhtenbrot (for finite satisfiability).In contrast, the satisfiability and finite satisfiability (...) problems are algorithmically solvable for restricted subsets---or, as we say, fragments---of first-order logic, a fact which is today of considerable interest in Computer Science. This book provides an up-to-date survey of the principal axes of research, charting the limits of decision in first-order logic and exploring the trade-off between expressive power and complexity of reasoning. Divided into three parts, the book considers for which fragments of first-order logic there is an effective method for determining satisfiability or finite satisfiability. Furthermore, if these problems are decidable for some fragment, what is their computational complexity? Part I focusses on fragments defined by restricting the set of available formulas. Topics covered include the Aristotelian syllogistic and its relatives, the two-variable fragment, the guarded fragment, the quantifier-prefix fragments and the fluted fragment. Part II investigates logics with counting quantifiers. Starting with De Morgan's numerical generalization of the Aristotelian syllogistic, we proceed to the two-variable fragment with counting quantifiers and its guarded subfragment, explaining the applications of the latter to the problem of query answering in structured data. Part III concerns logics characterized by semantic constraints, limiting the available interpretations of certain predicates. Taking propositional modal logic and graded modal logic as our cue, we return to the satisfiability problem for two-variable first-order logic and its relatives, but this time with certain distinguished binary predicates constrained to be interpreted as equivalence relations or transitive relations. The work finishes, slightly breaching the bounds of first-order logic proper, with a chapter on logics interpreted over trees. (shrink)

We prove two results about the embeddability relation between Borel linear orders: For $\eta$ a countable ordinal, let $2^\eta$ (resp. $2^{<\eta}$) be the set of sequences of zeros and ones of length $\eta$ (resp. $<\eta$), equipped with the lexicographic ordering. Given a Borel linear order $X$ and a countable ordinal $\xi$, we prove the following two facts. (a) Either $X$ can be embedded (in a $\triangle^1_1(X,\xi)$ way) in $2^{\omega\xi}$, or $2^{\omega\xi + 1}$ continuously embeds in $X$. (b) Either $X$ (...) can embedded (in a $\triangle^1_1(X,\xi)$ way) in $2^{\omega\xi}$, or $2^{\omega\xi}$ continuously embeds in $X$. These results extend previous work of Harrington, Shelah and Marker. (shrink)

Quine’s most important charge against second-, and more generally, higher-order logic is that it carries massive existential commitments. The force of this charge does not depend upon Quine’s questionable assimilation of second-order logic to set theory. Even if we take second-order variables to range over properties, rather than sets, the charge remains in force, as long as properties are individuated purely extensionally. I argue that if we interpret them as ranging over properties more reasonably construed, (...) in accordance with an abundant or deflationary conception, Quine’s charge can be resisted. This interpretation need not be seen as precluding the use of model-theoretic semantics for second-order languages; but it will preclude the use of the standard semantics, along with the more general Henkin semantics, of which it is a special case. To that extent, the approach I recommend has revisionary implications which some may find unpalatable; it is, however, compatible with the quite different special case in which the second-order variables are taken to range over definable subsets of the first-order domain, and with respect to such a semantics, some important metalogical results obtainable under the standard semantics may still be obtained. In my final section, I discuss the relations between second-order logic, interpreted as I recommend, and a strong version of schematic ancestral logic promoted in recent work by Richard Heck. I argue that while there is an interpretation on which Heck’s logic can be contrasted with second-order logic as standardly interpreted, when it is so interpreted, its differences from the more modest form of second-order logic I advocate are much less substantial, and may be largely presentational. (shrink)

This paper introduces two languages and associated logics designed to afford perspicuous representations of a range of natural language arguments involving adverbs and the like: first-order logic with basic adverbs (FOL-BA) and first-order logic with scoped adverbs (FOL-SA). The guiding logical idea is that an adverb can come between a term and the rest of the statement it is a part of, resulting in a logically stronger statement. I explain various interesting challenges that arise in the (...) attempt to implement the guiding idea, and provide solutions for some but not all of them. I conclude by outlining some directions for further research. (shrink)

The logic of paradox, LP, is a first-order, three-valued logic that has been advocated by Graham Priest as an appropriate way to represent the possibility of acceptable contradictory statements. Second-order LP is that logic augmented with quantification over predicates. As with classical second-order logic, there are different ways to give the semantic interpretation of sentences of the logic. The different ways give rise to different logical advantages and disadvantages, and we canvass several (...) of these, concluding that it will be extremely difficult to appeal to second-order LP for the purposes that its proponents advocate, until some deep, intricate, and hitherto unarticulated metaphysical advances are made. (shrink)

We discuss the differences between first-order set theory and second-order logic as a foundation for mathematics. We analyse these languages in terms of two levels of formalization. The analysis shows that if second-order logic is understood in its full semantics capable of characterizing categorically central mathematical concepts, it relies entirely on informal reasoning. On the other hand, if it is given a weak semantics, it loses its power in expressing concepts categorically. First-order set theory (...) and second-order logic are not radically different: the latter is a major fragment of the former. (shrink)

We try to answer the question which is the “right” foundation of mathematics, second order logic or set theory. Since the former is usually thought of as a formal language and the latter as a first order theory, we have to rephrase the question. We formulate what we call the second order view and a competing set theory view, and then discuss the merits of both views. On the surface these two views seem to be in (...) manifest conflict with each other. However, our conclusion is that it is very difficult to see any real difference between the two. We analyze a phenomenon we call internal categoricity which extends the familiar categoricity results of second order logic to Henkin models and show that set theory enjoys the same kind of internal categoricity. Thus the existence of non-standard models, which is usually taken as a property of first order set theory, and categoricity, which is usually taken as a property of second order axiomatizations, can coherently coexist when put into their proper context. We also take a fresh look at complete second order axiomatizations and give a hierarchy result for second order characterizable structures. Finally we consider the problem of existence in mathematics from both points of view and find that second order logic depends on what we call large domain assumptions, which come quite close to the meaning of the axioms of set theory. (shrink)

Beginning with a survey of the shortcoming of theories of organology/media-as-externalization of mind/body—a philosophical-anthropological tradition that stretches from Plato through Ernst Kapp and finds its contemporary proponent in Bernard Stiegler—I propose that the phenomenological treatment of media as an outpouching and extension of mind qua intentionality is not sufficient to counter the ̳black-box‘ mystification of today‘s deep learning‘s algorithms. Focusing on a close study of Simondon‘s On the Existence of Technical Objectsand Individuation, I argue that the process-philosophical work of Gilbert (...) Simondon, with its critique of Norbert Wiener‘s first-order cybernetics, offers a precursor to the conception of second-order cybernetics (as endorsed byFrancisco Varela, Humberto Maturana, and Ricardo B. Uribe) and, specifically, its autopoietic treatment of information. It has been argued by those such as Frank Pasquale that neuro-inferential deep learning systems premised on predictive patterning, suchas AlphaGo Zero, have a veiled logic and, thus, are ̳black boxes‘. In detailing a philosophical-historical approach to demystify predictive patterning/processing and the logic of such deep learning algorithms, this paper attempts to shine a light on such systems and their inner workingsàla Simondon. (shrink)

‘Quantified pure existentials’ are sentences (e.g., ‘Some things do not exist’) which meet these conditions: (i) the verb EXIST is contained in, and is, apart from quantificational BE, the only full (as against auxiliary) verb in the sentence; (ii) no (other) logical predicate features in the sentence; (iii) no name or other sub-sentential referring expression features in the sentence; (iv) the sentence contains a quantifier that is not an occurrence of EXIST. Colin McGinn and Rod Girle have alleged that standard (...) first-order logic cannot adequately deal with some such existentials. The article defends the view that it can. (shrink)

From a logical point of view, Stone duality for Boolean algebras relates theories in classical propositional logic and their collections of models. The theories can be seen as presentations of Boolean algebras, and the collections of models can be topologized in such a way that the theory can be recovered from its space of models. The situation can be cast as a formal duality relating two categories of syntax and semantics, mediated by homming into a common dualizing object, in (...) this case 2.In the present work, we generalize the entire arrangement from propositional to first-order logic, using a representation result of Butz and Moerdijk. Boolean algebras are replaced by Boolean categories presented by theories in first-order logic, and spaces of models are replaced by topological groupoids of models and their isomorphisms. A duality between the resulting categories of syntax and semantics, expressed primarily in the form of a contravariant adjunction, is established by homming into a common dualizing object, now Sets, regarded once as a boolean category, and once as a groupoid equipped with an intrinsic topology.The overall framework of our investigation is provided by topos theory. Direct proofs of the main results are given, but the specialist will recognize toposophical ideas in the background. Indeed, the duality between syntax and semantics is really a manifestation of that between algebra and geometry in the two directions of the geometric morphisms that lurk behind our formal theory. Along the way, we give an elementary proof of Butz and Moerdijkʼs result in logical terms. (shrink)

This paper begins the study of first-order functions, which are a generalization of truth-functions. The concepts of truth-table and systems of truth-functions, both introduced in propositional logic by Post, are also generalized and studied in the quantificational setting. The general facts about these concepts are given in the first five sections, and constitute a “general theory” of first-order functions. The central theme of this paper is the relation of definition among notions expressed by formulas of first-order (...) logic. We emphasize that logic is not concerned only with the consequence relation among notions expressed by formulas. It also attends to the relation of definition among notions, where a notion is defined from other notions. Sections 5 and 6 deal exclusively with the relation of definition among notions expressed by formulas of first-order logic. In these sections, we study the systems of first-order functions, which are the sets of first-order functions closed under definitions. Sections 7 and 8 are concerned with the relativization of first-order functions to a class of structures. The relativization to a class of structures is a fundamental operation which is used in order to relate the theory of first-order functions with set theory and first-order model theory, a subject which we have barely scratched the surface. The apparatus developed in this paper enables us to define what is a vehicle for the foundation of classical mathematics in set theory, and, in Sect. 8, we prove that first-order logic with one binary predicate variable is not a minimal vehicle for the foundation of classical mathematics in set theory. Sections 9 and 10 introduce further operations and ideals of first-order functions. Besides some results on the influence of the arguments of a first-order function, a result about definability is proved in Sect. 10.1. It is this theorem that provides necessary and sufficient conditions for a first-order function to be in a finitely generated ideal. In Sect. 11, this result is applied to the problem of predicate definability in classes of structures, the problem with which Beth’s theorem dealt in the case of elementary classes. (shrink)

It is well known that infinite minimal sets for continuous functions on the interval are Cantor sets; that is, compact zero dimensional metrizable sets without isolated points. On the other hand, it was proved in Alcaraz and Sanchis (Bifurcat Chaos 13:1665–1671, 2003) that infinite minimal sets for continuous functions on connected linearly ordered spaces enjoy the same properties as Cantor sets except that they can fail to be metrizable. However, no examples of such subsets have been known. In this (...) note we construct, in ZFC, ${2^{\mathfrak{c}}}$ non-metrizable infinite pairwise non-homeomorphic minimal sets on compact connected linearly ordered spaces. (shrink)

Ignacio Jane has argued that second-order logic presupposes some amount of set theory and hence cannot legitimately be used in axiomatizing set theory. I focus here on his claim that the second-order formulation of the Axiom of Separation presupposes the character of the power set operation, thereby preventing a thorough study of the power set of infinite sets, a central part of set theory. In reply I argue that substantive issues often cannot be separated from a (...) class='Hi'>logic, but rather must be presupposed. I call this the logic-metalogic link. There are two facets to the logic-metalogic link. First, when a logic is entangled with a substantive issue, the same position on that issue should be taken at the meta- level as at the object level; and second, if an expression has a clear meaning in natural language, then the corresponding concept can equally well be deployed in a formal language. The determinate nature of the power set operation is one such substantive issue in set theory. Whether there is a determinate power set of an infinite set can only be presupposed in set theory, not proved, so the use of second-order logic cannot be ruled out by virtue of presupposing one answer to this question. Moreover, the legitimacy of presupposing in the background logic that the power set of an infinite set is determinate is guaranteed by the clarity and definiteness of the notions of all and of subset. This is also exactly what is required for the same presupposition to be legitimately made in an axiomatic set theory, so the use of second-order logic in set theory rather than first-order logic does not require any new metatheoretic commitments. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is show that second-order logic, as understood through standard semantics, is intimately bound up with set theory, or some other general theory of interpretations, structures, or whatever. Contra Quine, this does not disqualify second-order logic from its role in foundational studies. To wax Quinean, why should there be a sharp border separating mathematics from logic, especially the logic of mathematics?