Skip to main content



Many recent writers in the philosophy of mathematics have put great weight on the relative categoricity of the traditional axiomatizations of our foundational theories of arithmetic and set theory (Parsons, 1990; Parsons, 2008, sec. 49; McGee, 1997; Lavine, 1999; Väänänen & Wang, 2014). Another great enterprise in contemporary philosophy of mathematics has been Wright’s and Hale’s project of founding mathematics on abstraction principles (Hale & Wright, 2001; Cook, 2007). In Walsh (2012), it was noted that one traditional abstraction principle, namely Hume’s Principle, had a certain relative categoricity property, which here we term natural relative categoricity. In this paper, we show that most other abstraction principles are not naturally relatively categorical, so that there is in fact a large amount of incompatibility between these two recent trends in contemporary philosophy of mathematics. To better understand the precise demands of relative categoricity in the context of abstraction principles, we compare and contrast these constraints to (i) stability-like acceptability criteria on abstraction principles (cf. Cook, 2012), (ii) the Tarski-Sher logicality requirements on abstraction principles studied by Antonelli (2010b) and Fine (2002), and (iii) supervaluational ideas coming out of the work of Hodes (1984, 1990, 1991).

Corresponding author
Hide All
Antonelli, G. A. (2010a). The nature and purpose of numbers. The Journal of Philosophy, 107(4), 191212.
Antonelli, G. A. (2010b). Notions of invariance for abstraction principles. Philosophia Mathematica, 18(3), 276292.
Antonelli, G. A. (2010c). Numerical abstraction via the Frege quantifier. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 51(2), 161179.
Boolos, G. (1989). Iteration again. Philosophical Topics, 17, 521. Reprinted in Boolos (1998).
Boolos, G. (1990). The standard equality of numbers. In Boolos, G., editor. Meaning and Method: Essays in Honor of Hilary Putnam, pp. 261277. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Boolos (1998), Demopoulos (1995).
Boolos, G. (1998). Logic, Logic, and Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burgess, J. P. (2005). Fixing Frege. Princeton Monographs in Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Button, T., & Walsh, S. (2015). Ideas and results in model theory: Reference, realism, structure and categoricity. arXiv:1501.00472.
Cook, R. T., editor (2007). The Arché Papers on the Mathematics of Abstraction. Volume 71 of The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science. Berlin: Springer.
Cook, R. T. (2012). Conservativeness, stability, and abstraction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 673696.
Demopoulos, W., editor (1995). Frege’s Philosophy of Mathematics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ebbinghaus, H.-D. (1985). Extended logics: The general framework. In Barwise, J. and Feferman, S., editors. Model-Theoretic Logics, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, pp. 2576. New York: Springer.
Enderton, H. B. (2001). A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (second edition). Burlington: Harcourt.
Fine, K. (2002). The Limits of Abstraction. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Fine, K. (2005). Précis. Philosophical Studies, 122(3), 305313.
Fine, K. (2006). Our knowledge of mathematical objects. In Gendler, T. Z. and Hawthorne, J., editors. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 1, pp. 89109. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Breslau: Koebner.
Frege, G. (1980). The Foundations of Arithmetic: A Logico-Mathematical Enquiry into the Concept of Number (second edition). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Hale, B. (1987). Abstract Objects. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hale, B., & Wright, C. (2000). Implicit definition and the a priori. In Boghossian, P. and Peacocke, C., editors. New Essays on the A Priori, pp. 286319. Oxford: Clarendon. Reprinted in Hale & Wright (2001).
Hale, B., & Wright, C. (2001). The Reason’s Proper Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heck, R. G. Jr. (1992). On the consistency of second-order contextual definitions. Noûs, 26(4), 491494.
Hodes, H. (1984). Logicism and the ontological commitments of arithmetic. The Journal of Philosophy, 81(3), 123149.
Hodes, H. (1990). Where do the natural numbers come from? Synthese, 84(3), 347407.
Hodes, H. (1991). Where do sets come from? The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 56(1), 150175.
Hrbacek, K., & Jech, T. (1999). Introduction to Set Theory (third edition). Volume 220 of Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics. New York: Dekker.
Jané, I., & Uzquiano, G. (2004). Well and non-well-founded Fregean extensions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33, 437465.
Keenan, E. L., & Moss, L. S. (1985). Generalized quantifiers and the expressive power of natural language. In van Benthem, J. and ter Meulen, A., editors. Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language, pp. 73124. Dordrecht: Floris.
Kunen, K. (1980). Set Theory. Volume 102 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Kunen, K. (2011). Set Theory. London: College Publications.
Lavine, S. (1999). Skolem was wrong. Unpublished.
Linnebo, Ø. (2011). Higher-order logic. In Horsten, L. and Pettigrew, R., editors. The Continuum Companion to Philosophical Logic, pp. 105127. London and New York: Continuum.
MacFarlane, J. (2002). Frege, Kant, and the logic in logicism. The Philosophical Review, 111(1), 2565.
Manzano, M. (1996). Extensions of First Order Logic. Volume 19 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marker, D. (2002). Model Theory: An Introduction. Volume 217 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. New York: Springer.
McGee, V. (1997). How we learn mathematical language. Philosophical Review, 106(1), 3568.
Parsons, C. (1990). The uniqueness of the natural numbers. Iyyun, 39(1), 1344.
Parsons, C. (2008). Mathematical Thought and its Objects. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2008). Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shapiro, S. (1991). Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic. Volume 17 of Oxford Logic Guides. New York: The Clarendon Press.
Shapiro, S. (2000). Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shapiro, S., editor (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shapiro, S., & Weir, A. (1999). New V, ZF and abstraction. Philosophia Mathematica, 7(3), 293321.
Sher, G. (1991). The Bounds of Logic: A Generalized Viewpoint. A Bradford Book. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Simpson, S. G. (1999). Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin: Springer.
Tarski, A. (1986). What are logical notions? History and Philosophy of Logic, 7(2), 143154.
Väänänen, J., & Wang, T. (2014). Internal categoricity in arithmetic and set theory. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. To appear.
Walsh, S. (2012). Comparing Hume’s Principle, basic law V and Peano arithmetic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 163, 16791709.
Walsh, S. (2014a). Fragments of Frege’s Grundgesetze and Gödel’s constructible universe. arXiv:1407.3861.
Walsh, S. (2014b). Logicism, interpretability, and knowledge of arithmetic. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 7(1), 84119.
Wright, C. (1983). Frege’s Conception of Numbers as Objects. Volume 2 of Scots Philosophical Monographs. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
Wright, C. (1997). On the philosophical significance of Frege’s theorem. In Heck, R. G. Jr., editor. Language, Thought, and Logic: Essays in Honour of Michael Dummett, pp. 201244. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted in Hale & Wright (2001).
Wright, C. (1998). On the harmless impredictavity of N = (Hume’s Principle). In Schirn, M., editor. Philosophy of Mathematics Today, pp. 393–368. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprinted in Hale & Wright (2001).
Wright, C. (1999). Is Hume’s Principle analytic? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 40(1), 630. Reprinted in Hale & Wright (2001).
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Review of Symbolic Logic
  • ISSN: 1755-0203
  • EISSN: 1755-0211
  • URL: /core/journals/review-of-symbolic-logic
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed