Semantics and Completeness for Schematic Logic
Keywordslogic, nominalist, schematic logic, semantics, completeness
This paper gives a semantics for schematic logic, proving soundness and completeness. The argument for soundness is carried out in ontologically innocent fashion, relying only on the existence of formulae which are actually written down in the course of a derivation in the logic. This makes the logic available to a nominalist, even a nominalist who does not wish to rely on modal notions, and who accepts the possibility that the universe may in fact be finite.
Burgess, John P., and Gideon Rosen, 1997, A Subject With No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics, Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York.
Cori, René, and Daniel Lascar, 2001, Mathematical Logic: A Course with Exercises Part II, OUP Oxford: Oxford.
Field, Hartry, 1980, Science Without Numbers, Princeton University Press: Princeton, N.J.
Heck, Richard Kimberly, 2011, Frege’s Theorem, OUP Oxford: Oxford, New York. (Originally published under the name “Richard G. Heck, Jr”.)
Lavine, Shaughan, 1998, Understanding the Infinite, new edition, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass.
Maddy, Penelope, 1997, Naturalism in Mathematics, Clarendon Press.
Parsons, Charles, 2007, Mathematical Thought and its Objects, Cambridge University Press.
Quine, W.V., 1999, “Reply to Charles Parsons”, in pages 396–403 Lewis Edwin Hahn and Paul Arthur Schilpp (eds.), The Philosophy of W.V. Quine, Volume 18, Open Court Publishing Co: La Salle, Ill.
Shapiro, Stewart, 2000, Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-order Logic, new edition, Oxford University Press: Oxford, USA.
Shoenfield, J., 1982, “Axioms of set theory”, in Handbook of Mathematical Logic, North Holland: Amsterdam, New York.
How to Cite
Number of views and downloads: 81
Number of citations: 0