Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-02T09:50:30.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GENERALITY AND EXISTENCE 1: QUANTIFICATION AND FREE LOGIC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2018

GREG RESTALL
GREG RESTALL*
Affiliation:
School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne
*
*SCHOOL OF HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE PARKVILLE, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA E-mail: restall@unimelb.edu.auURL: http://consequently.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I motivate a cut free sequent calculus for classical logic with first order quantification, allowing for singular terms free of existential import. Along the way, I motivate a criterion for rules designed to answer Prior’s question about what distinguishes rules for logical concepts, like conjunction from apparently similar rules for putative concepts like Prior’s tonk, and I show that the rules for the quantifiers—and the existence predicate—satisfy that condition.

Keywords

03A0503F03free logicproof theorysequent calculusgenerality

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2018 

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anellis, I. H. (1990). From semantic tableaux to Smullyan trees: A history of the development of the falsifiability tree method. Modern Logic, 1(1), 36–69.Google Scholar
Avron, A. (1993). Gentzen-type systems, resolution and tableaux. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 10(2), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilotti, G. & Sambin, G. (1999). Basic logic and the cube of its extensions. In Cantini, A., Casari, E., and Minari, P., editors. Logic and Foundations of Mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belnap, N. D. (1962). Tonk, plonk and plink. Analysis, 22, 130–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berto, F. (2015). “There is an ‘is’ in ‘there is”’: Meinongian quantification and existence. In Torza, A., editor. Quantifiers, Quantifiers, and Quantifiers. Synthese Library. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Curry, H. B. & Feys, R. (1958). Combinatory Logic, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Došen, K. (1989). Logical constants as punctuation marks. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 30(3), 362–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faggian, C. & Sambin, G. (1998). From basic logic to quantum logics with cut-elimination. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 37(1), 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. (1995). Definedness. Erkenntnis, 43(3), 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gratzl, N. (2010). A sequent calculus for a negative free logic. Studia Logica, 96(3), 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, K. (1997). Free Logics: Their Foundations, Character, and Some Applications Thereof. Germany: Academia Verlag, Sankt Augustin.Google Scholar
Meinong, A. (1983). On Aassumptions. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. Translated and edited by Heanue, James.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2006). Doubt Truth to be a Liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, A. N. (1960). The runabout inference-ticket. Analysis, 21(2), 38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1954). Quantification and the empty domain. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 19(3), 177–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restall, G. (2005). Multiple conclusions. In Hájek, P., Valdés-Villanueva, L., and Westerståhl, D., editors. Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress. KCL Publications, pp. 189–205. Available at: http://consequently.org/writing/multipleconclusions.Google Scholar
Restall, G. (2009). Truth values and proof theory. Studia Logica, 92(2), 241–264. Available at http://consequently.org/writing/tvpt/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restall, G. (2012). A cut-free sequent system for two-dimensional modal logic, and why it matters. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 163(11), 1611–1623. Available at: http://consequently.org/writing/cfss2dml/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Routley, R. (1979). Exploring Meinong’s Jungle. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Sambin, G., Battilotti, G., & Faggian, C. (2014). Basic logic: Reflection, symmetry, visibility. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 65(3), 979–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scales, R. D. (1969). Attribution and Existence. Ph.D. Thesis, Irvine: University of California.Google Scholar
Schock, R. (1968). Logics Without Existence Assumptions. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiskell.Google Scholar
Schütte, K. (1956). Ein system des verknüpfenden schliessens. Archiv für mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung, 2(2–4), 55–67. (German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smullyan, R. M. (1995). First-Order Logic. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Reprinted by Dover Press.Google Scholar
Takeuti, G. (1987). Proof Theory (second edition). Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 81. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Textor, M. (2017). Towards a Neo-Brentanian theory of existence. Philosophers’ Imprint, 17(6), 1–20.Google Scholar
Wadler, P. (2005). Call-by-value is dual to call-by-name, reloaded. In Giesl, J., editor. Rewriting Techniques and Application, RTA’05. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3467. Berlin: Springer, pp. 185–203.Google Scholar