Skip to main content



In this article, I try to shed some new light on Grundgesetze §10, §29–§31 with special emphasis on Frege’s criteria and proof of referentiality and his treatment of the semantics of canonical value-range names. I begin by arguing against the claim, recently defended by several Frege scholars, that the first-order domain in Grundgesetze is restricted to value-ranges (including the truth-values), but conclude that there is an irresolvable tension in Frege’s view. The tension has a direct impact on the semantics of the concept-script, not least on the semantics of value-range names. I further argue that despite first appearances truth-value names (sentences) play a distinguished role as semantic “target names” for “test names” in the criteria of referentiality (§29) and do not figure themselves as “test names” regarding referentiality. Accordingly, I show in detail that Frege’s attempt to demonstrate that by virtue of his stipulations “regular” value-range names have indeed been endowed with a unique reference, can plausibly be regarded as a direct application of the context principle. In a subsequent section, I turn to some special issues involved in §10. §10 is closely intertwined with §31 and in my and Richard Heck’s view would have been better positioned between §30 and §31. In a first step, I discuss the piecemeal strategy which Frege applies when he attempts to bestow a unique reference on value-range names in §3, §10–§12. In a second step, I critically analyze his tentative, but predictably unsuccessful proposal (in a long footnote to §10) to identify all objects whatsoever, including those already clad in the garb of value-ranges, with their unit classes. In conclusion, I present two arguments for my claim that Frege’s identification of the True and the False with their unit classes in §10 is illicit even if both the permutation argument and the identifiability thesis that he states in §10 are regarded as formally sound. The first argument is set out from the point of view of the syntax of his formal language. It suggests though that a reorganization of the exposition of the concept-script would have solved at least one of the problems to which the twin stipulations in §10 give rise. The second argument rests on semantic considerations. If it is sound, it may call into question, if not undermine the legitimacy of the twin stipulations.

Corresponding author
Hide All
Blanchette, P. (2012a). Frege on shared belief and total functions. Journal of Philosophy, 109, 939.
Blanchette, P. (2012b). Frege’s Conception of Logic. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blanchette, P. (2015). Reply to Cook, Rossberg and Wehmeier. Journal of the History of Analytic Philosophy, 3, 113.
Blanchette, P. (2016). Frege on mathematical progress. In Costreie (2016). pp. 3–19.
Cook, R. (2013). How to read Grundgesetze. In Frege, G. Basic Laws of Arithmetic. Derived Using Concept-Script, Vol. I & II, translated and edited by Ebert, P. A. and Rossberg, M., with Wright, C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. A1A42.
Cook, R. T. (2014). Review of Blanchette (2012b). Philosophia Mathematica, 22, 108120.
Cook, R. T. & Ebert, P. A. (2016). Frege’s recipe. The Journal of Philosophy, 113, 309345.
Costreie, V. S. (editor) (2016). Early Analytic Philosophy. New Perspectives on the Tradition. New York, London: Springer.
Dummett, M. (1973). Frege. Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth.
Dummett, M. (1981). The Interpretation of Frege’s Philosophy. London: Duckworth.
Dummett, M. (1991). Frege. Philosophy of Mathematics. London: Duckworth.
Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Eine logisch mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl. Breslau: W. Koebner.
Frege, G. (1892). Über Begriff und Gegenstand. Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 16, 192–205. In Frege (1967), pp. 167178.
Frege, G. (1893). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. Begriffsschriftlich abgeleitet, Vol. I. Jena: H. Pohle.
Frege, G. (1902). Letter to Russell of 3.8.1902. In Frege (1976), pp. 225–226.
Frege, G. (1903). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. Begriffsschriftlich abgeleitet, Vol. II. Jena: H. Pohle.
Frege, G. (1967). Kleine Schriften, edited by Angelelli, I.. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
Frege, G. (1976). Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel, edited by Gabriel, G., Hermes, H., Kambartel, F., Thiel, C., and Veraart, A.. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
Heck, R. G. (1997). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik I §§29–32. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 437474.
Heck, R. G. (1999). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik I §10. Philosophia Mathematica, 7, 258292.
Heck, R. G. (2005). Julius Caesar and Basic Law V. Dialectica, 59, 161178.
Heck, R. G. (2011). Frege’s Theorem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heck, R. G. (2012). Reading Frege’s Grundgesetze. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Linnebo, Ø. (2004). Frege’s proof of referentiality. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 45, 7398.
Resnik, M. (1986). Frege’s proof of referentiality. In Haaparanta, L. & Hintikka, J., editors. Frege Synthesized. Essays on the Philosophical and Foundational Work of Gottlob Frege. Dordrecht, Boston: D. Reidel, pp. 177195.
Ruffino, M. (2002). Logical objects in Frege’s Grundgesetze, section 10. In Reck, E., editor. From Frege to Wittgenstein: Perspectives on Early Analytical Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 125148.
Schirn, M. (2003). Fregean abstraction, referential indeterminacy and the logical foundations of arithmetic. Erkenntnis, 59, 203232.
Schirn, M. (2006a). Concepts, extensions, and Frege’s logicist project. Mind, 115, 9831005.
Schirn, M. (2006b). Hume’s principle and axiom V reconsidered: Critical reflections on Frege and his interpreters. Synthese, 148, 171227.
Schirn, M. (2010). On translating Frege’s Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. History and Philosophy of Logic, 31, 4772.
Schirn, M. (2013). Frege’s approach to the foundations of analysis (1873–1903). History and Philosophy of Logic, 34, 266292.
Schirn, M. (2014a). Frege on quantities and real numbers in consideration of the theories of Cantor, Russell and others. In Link, G., editor. Formalism and Beyond. On the Nature of Mathematical Discourse. Boston and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 2595.
Schirn, M. (2014b). Frege’s logicism and the neo-Fregean project. Axiomathes, 24, 207243.
Schirn, M. (2016). On the nature, status, and proof of Hume’s Principle in Frege’s logicist project. In Costreie (2016), pp. 49–96.
Schirn, M. (2018a). Frege on the Foundations of Mathematics, Synthese Library, Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. New York, London: Springer.
Schirn, M. (2018b). Second-order abstraction before and after Russell’s paradox. In Ebert, P. and Rossberg, M., editors. Essays on Frege’s Basic Laws of Arithmetic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 433491.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (1987). A model-theoretic reconstruction of Frege’s permutation argument. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 28, 6979.
Thiel, C. (1975). Zur Inkonsistenz der Fregeschen Mengenlehre. In Thiel, C., editor. Frege und die Moderne Grundlagenforschung. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, pp. 134159.
Wehmeier, K. F. (1999). Consistent fragments of Grundgesetze and the existence of non-logical objects. Synthese, 121, 309328.
Wehmeier, K. F. (2015). Critical remarks on Frege’s conception of logic by Patricia Blanchette. Journal of the History of Analytic Philosophy, 3, 19.
Wehmeier, K. F. & Schroeder-Heister, P. (2005). Frege’s permutation argument revisited. Synthese, 147, 4361.
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