Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-ckhzl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-05T14:44:39.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intensional models for the theory of types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Reinhard Muskens
Reinhard Muskens*
Affiliation:
Tilburg University, Department of Philosophy, P.O. Box 90153, NL 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands. E-mail: r.a.muskens@uvt.nl URL: http://let.uvt.nl/general/people/rmuskens/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we define intensional models for the classical theory of types, thus arriving at an intensional type logic ITL. Intensional models generalize Henkin's general models and have a natural definition. As a class they do not validate the axiom of Extensionality. We give a cut-free sequent calculus for type theory and show completeness of this calculus with respect to the class of intensional models via a model existence theorem. After this we turn our attention to applications. Firstly, it is argued that, since ITL is truly intensional, it can be used to model ascriptions of propositional attitude without predicting logical omniscience. In order to illustrate this a small fragment of English is defined and provided with an ITL semantics. Secondly, it is shown that ITL models contain certain objects that can be identified with possible worlds. Essential elements of modal logic become available within classical type theory once the axiom of Extensionality is given up.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 98 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Andrews, P. B., Resolution in type theory, this Journal, vol. 36 (1971), no. 3, pp. 414–432.Google Scholar
[2]Barwise, J., Information and impossibilities, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 38 (1997), no. 4, pp. 488–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Benzmüller, C., Brown, C. E., and Kohlhase, M., Higher order semantics and extensionality, this Journal, vol. 69 (2004).Google Scholar
[4]Carnap, R., Meaning and Necessity, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1947.Google Scholar
[5]Chierchia, G. and Turner, R., Semantics and property theory, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 11 (1988), pp. 261–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Church, A., A formulation of the simple theory of types, this Journal, vol. 5 (1940), pp. 56–68.Google Scholar
[7]Cresswell, M. J., Intensional logics and logical truth, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 1 (1972), pp. 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Cresswell, M. J., Structured Meanings, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
[9]Fitting, M., First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, Springer, New York, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Fitting, M., Types, Tableaus, and Gödels God, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Frege, G., Über Sinn und Bedeutung, 1892, reprinted in Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung. Fünf Logische Studien, (Patzig, G., editor), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.Google Scholar
[12]Henkin, L., Completeness in the theory of types, this Journal, vol. 15 (1950), pp. 81–91.Google Scholar
[13]Hintikka, J., Impossible possible worlds vindicated, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4 (1975), pp. 475–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Lewis, D., General semantics, Semantics of Natural Language (Davidson, D. and Harman, G., editors), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1972, pp. 169–218.Google Scholar
[15]Montague, R., Universal grammar, Theoria, vol. 36 (1970), pp. 373–398, reprinted in [29].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Montague, R., The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary english, Approaches to Natural Language (Hintikka, J., Moravcsik, J., and Supper, P., editors), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973, reprinted in [29], pp. 221–242.Google Scholar
[17]Moschovakis, Y., Sense and denotation as algorithm and value, Logic Colloquium '90 (Helsinki 1990), Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 2, Springer, Berlin, 1994, pp. 210–249.Google Scholar
[18]Muskens, R. A., A relational formulation of the theory of types, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 12 (1989), pp. 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Muskens, R. A., Meaning and partiality, CSLI, Stanford, 1995.Google Scholar
[20]Muskens, R. A., Sense and the computation of reference, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 28 (2005), no. 4, pp. 473–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Muskens, R. A., Higher order modal logic, Handbook of Modal Logic (Blackburn, P., van Benthem, J.F. A. K., and Wolter, F., editors), Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning, vol. 3, Elsevier, Dordrecht, 2006, pp. 621–653.Google Scholar
[22]Orey, S., Model theory for the higher order predicate calculus, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 92 (1959), pp. 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Pollard, C., Hyperintensional semantics in a higher-order logic with definable subtypes, Lambda Calculus, Type Theory, and Natural Language (Fernández, M., Fox, C., and Lappin, S., editors), King's College, London, 2005, pp. 32–46.Google Scholar
[24]Prawitz, D., Hauptsatz for higher order logic, this Journal, vol. 33 (1968), no. 3, pp. 452–457.Google Scholar
[25]Rantala, V., Quantified modal logic: Non-normal worlds and propositional attitudes, Studia Logica, vol. 41 (1982), pp. 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26]Schütte, K., Syntactical and semantical properties of simple type theory, this Journal, vol. 25 (1960), no. 4, pp. 305–326.Google Scholar
[27]Smullyan, R. M., First-Order Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28]Takahashi, M., A proof of cut-elimination theorem in simple type Theory, Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan, vol. 19 (1967), no. 4, pp. 399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29]Thomason, R. (editor), Formal Philosophy, Selected papers of Richard Montague, Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
[30]Thomason, R. (editor), A model theory for propositional attitudes, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 4 (1980), pp. 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[31]Turner, R., A theory of properties, this Journal, vol. 52 (1987), no. 2, pp. 455–472.Google Scholar
[32]Whitehead, A. N. and Russell, B., Principia Mathematica, Cambridge University Press, 1910–13.Google Scholar
[33]Wittgenstein, L., Tractatus Logico-Philosophlcus, Routledge, 1922.Google Scholar
[34]Zalta, E., A classically-based theory of impossible worlds, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 38 (1997), no. 4, pp. 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar