In Part I of this paper, I assumed we begin with a signature $$P = \{P_i\}$$ P = { P i } and the corresponding language $$L_P$$ L P, and introduced the following notions: a definition system$$d_{\Phi }$$ d Φ for a set of new predicate symbols $$Q_i$$ Q i, given by a set $$\Phi = \{\phi _i\}$$ Φ = { ϕ i } of defining $$L_P$$ L P -formulas \leftrightarrow \phi _i)$$ ∀ x ¯ ↔ ϕ i ) ); (...) a corresponding translation function$$\tau _{\Phi }: L_Q \rightarrow L_P$$ τ Φ : L Q → L P ; the corresponding definitional image operator$$D_{\Phi }$$ D Φ, applicable to $$L_P$$ L P -structures and $$L_P$$ L P -theories; and the notion of definitional equivalence itself: for structures $$A + d_{\Phi } \equiv B + d_{\Theta }$$ A + d Φ ≡ B + d Θ ; for theories, $$T_1 + d_{\Phi } \equiv T_2 + d_{\Theta }$$ T 1 + d Φ ≡ T 2 + d Θ. Some results relating these notions were given, ending with two characterizations for definitional equivalence. In this second part, we explain the notion of a representation basis. Suppose a set $$\Phi = \{\phi _i\}$$ Φ = { ϕ i } of $$L_P$$ L P -formulas is given, and $$\Theta = \{\theta _i\}$$ Θ = { θ i } is a set of $$L_Q$$ L Q -formulas. Then the original set $$\Phi $$ Φ is called a representation basis for an $$L_P$$ L P -structure A with inverse $$\Theta $$ Θ iff an inverse explicit definition $$\forall \overline{x} \leftrightarrow \theta _i)$$ ∀ x ¯ ↔ θ i ) is true in $$A + d_{\Phi }$$ A + d Φ, for each $$P_i$$ P i. Similarly, the set $$\Phi $$ Φ is called a representation basis for a $$L_P$$ L P -theory T with inverse $$\Theta $$ Θ iff each explicit definition $$\forall \overline{x} \leftrightarrow \theta _i)$$ ∀ x ¯ ↔ θ i ) is provable in $$T + d_{\Phi }$$ T + d Φ. Some results about representation bases, the mappings they induce and their relationship with the notion of definitional equivalence are given. In particular, we show that $$T_1$$ T 1 is definitionally equivalent to $$T_2$$ T 2, with respect to $$\Phi $$ Φ and $$\Theta $$ Θ, if and only if $$\Phi $$ Φ is a representation basis for $$T_1$$ T 1 with inverse $$\Theta $$ Θ and $$T_2 \equiv D_{\Phi }T_1$$ T 2 ≡ D Φ T 1. (shrink)

This paper presents a simple pair of first-order theories that are not definitionally (nor Morita) equivalent, yet are mutually conservatively translatable and mutually 'surjectively' translatable. We use these results to clarify the overall geography of standards of equivalence and to show that the structural commitments that theories make behave in a more subtle manner than has been recognized.

Mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers of physics often look to the symmetries of an object for insight into the structure and constitution of the object. My aim in this paper is to explain why this practice is successful. In order to do so, I present a collection of results that are closely related to (and in a sense, generalizations of) Beth’s and Svenonius’ theorems.

In this article, I examine whether or not the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations of classical mechanics are equivalent theories. I do so by applying a standard for equivalence that was recently introduced into philosophy of science by Halvorson and Weatherall. This case study yields three general philosophical payoffs. The first concerns what a theory is, while the second and third concern how we should interpret what our physical theories say about the world. 1Introduction 2When Are Two Theories Equivalent? 3Preliminaries on (...) Classical Mechanics 3.1Hamiltonian mechanics 3.2Lagrangian mechanics 4Are Hamiltonian and Lagrangian Mechanics Equivalent Theories? 4.1Tangent bundle versus cotangent bundle 4.2Tangent bundle versus symplectic manifold 4.3Lagrangian vector field versus Hamiltonian vector field 5Conclusion Appendix. (shrink)

Quine often argued for a simple, untyped system of logic rather than the typed systems that were championed by Russell and Carnap, among others. He claimed that nothing important would be lost by eliminating sorts, and the result would be additional simplicity and elegance. In support of this claim, Quine conjectured that every many-sorted theory is equivalent to a single-sorted theory. We make this conjecture precise, and prove that it is true, at least according to one reasonable notion of theoretical (...) equivalence. Our clarification of Quine’s conjecture, however, exposes the shortcomings of his argument against many-sorted logic. (shrink)

In this paper, we examine the relationship between general relativity and the theory of Einstein algebras. We show that according to a formal criterion for theoretical equivalence recently proposed by Halvorson and Weatherall, the two are equivalent theories.

The debate between critics of syntactic and semantic approaches to the formalization of scientific theories has been going on for over 50 years. I structure the debate in light of a recent exchange between Hans Halvorson, Clark Glymour, and Bas van Fraassen and argue that the only remaining disagreement concerns the alleged difference in the dependence of syntactic and semantic approaches on languages of predicate logic. This difference turns out to be illusory.

It has long been known that (classical) Peano arithmetic is, in some strong sense, “equivalent” to the variant of (classical) Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (including choice) in which the axiom of infinity is replaced by its negation. The intended model of the latter is the set of hereditarily finite sets. The connection between the theories is so tight that they may be taken as notational variants of each other. Our purpose here is to develop and establish a constructive version of this. (...) We present an intuitionistic theory of the hereditarily finite sets, and show that it is definitionally equivalent to Heyting Arithmetic, in a sense to be made precise. Our main target theory, the intuitionistic small set theory is remarkably simple, and intuitive. It has just one non-logical primitive, for membership, and three straightforward axioms plus one axiom scheme. We locate our theory within intuitionistic mathematics generally. (shrink)

Logicians and philosophers of science have proposed various formal criteria for theoretical equivalence. In this paper, we examine two such proposals: definitional equivalence and categorical equivalence. In order to show precisely how these two well-known criteria are related to one another, we investigate an intermediate criterion called Morita equivalence.

I argue that a criterion of theoretical equivalence due to Glymour :227–251, 1977) does not capture an important sense in which two theories may be equivalent. I then motivate and state an alternative criterion that does capture the sense of equivalence I have in mind. The principal claim of the paper is that relative to this second criterion, the answer to the question posed in the title is “yes”, at least on one natural understanding of Newtonian gravitation.

In the first part of this paper (Méndez and Robles 2008) a minimal and an intuitionistic negation is introduced in a wide spectrum of relevance logics extending Routley and Meyer's basic positive logic B+. It is proved that although all these logics have the characteristic paradoxes of consistency, they lack the K rule (and so, the K axiom). Negation is introduced with a propositional falsity constant. The aim of this paper is to build up logics definitionally equivalent to those in (...) the aforementioned paper, negation being now introduced with the unary connective. Relational ternary semantics are provided for the new logics and soundness and completeness results are proved. (shrink)

This paper assembles a unifying framework encompassing a wide variety of mathematical instruments used to compare different theories. The main theme will be the idea that theory comparison techniques are most easily grasped and organized through the lens of category theory. The paper develops a table of different equivalence relations between theories and then answers many of the questions about how those equivalence relations are themselves related to each other. We show that Morita equivalence fits into this framework and provide (...) answers to questions left open in Barrett and Halvorson [4]. We conclude by setting up a diagram of known relationships and leave open some questions for future work. (shrink)

The purported fact that geometric theories formulated in terms of points and geometric theories formulated in terms of lines are “equally correct” is often invoked in arguments for conceptual relativity, in particular by Putnam and Goodman. We discuss a few notions of equivalence between first-order theories, and we then demonstrate a precise sense in which this purported fact is true. We argue, however, that this fact does not undermine metaphysical realism.

A notable early result of David Makinson establishes that every monotone modal logic can be extended to LI, LV, or LF, and every antitone logic can be extended to LN, LV, or LF, where LI, LN, LV, and LF are logics axiomatized, respectively, by the schemas □α↔α, □α↔¬α, □α↔⊤, and □α↔⊥. We investigate logics that are both monotone and antitone (hereafter amphitone). There are exactly three: LV, LF, and the minimum amphitone logic AM axiomatized by the schema □α→□β. These logics, (...) along with LI, LN, and a wider class of “extensional” logics, bear close affinities to classical propositional logic. Characterizing those affinities reveals differences among several accounts of equivalence between logics. Some results about amphitone logics do not carry over when logics are construed as consequence or generalized (“multiple-conclusion”) consequence relations on languages that may lack some or all of the nonmodal connectives. We close by discussing these divergences and conditions under which our results do carry over. (shrink)

For simplicity, most of the literature introduces the concept of definitional equivalence only for disjoint languages. In a recent paper, Barrett and Halvorson introduce a straightforward generalization to non-disjoint languages and they show that their generalization is not equivalent to intertranslatability in general. In this paper, we show that their generalization is not transitive and hence it is not an equivalence relation. Then we introduce another formalization of definitional equivalence due to Andréka and Németi which is equivalent to the Barrett–Halvorson (...) generalization in the case of disjoint languages. We show that the Andréka–Németi generalization is the smallest equivalence relation containing the Barrett–Halvorson generalization and it is equivalent to intertranslatability, which is another definition for definitional equivalence, even for non-disjoint languages. Finally, we investigate which definitions for definitional equivalences remain equivalent when we generalize them for theories in non-disjoint languages. (shrink)

Glymour and Quine propose two different formal criteria for theoretical equivalence. In this paper we examine the relationships between these criteria.

The logic BKc1 is the basic constructive logic for weak consistency in the ternary relational semantics without a set of designated points. In this paper, a number of extensions of B Kc1 defined with a propositional falsity constant are defined. It is also proved that weak consistency is not equivalent to negation-consistency or absolute consistency in any logic included in positive contractionless intermediate logic LC plus the constructive negation of BKc1 and the contraposition axioms.

There is sometimes a sense in which one theory posits ‘less structure’ than another. Philosophers of science have recently appealed to this idea both in the debate about equivalence of theories and in discussions about structural parsimony. But there are a number of different proposals currently on the table for how to compare the ‘amount of structure’ that different theories posit. The aim of this paper is to compare these proposals against one another and evaluate them on their own merits.

Sometimes structures or theories are formulated with different sets of primitives and yet are definitionally equivalent. In a sense, the transformations between such equivalent formulations are rather like basis transformations in linear algebra or co-ordinate transformations in geometry. Here an analogous idea is investigated. Let a relational signature \ be given. For a set \ of \-formulas, we introduce a corresponding set \ of new relation symbols and a set of explicit definitions of the \ in terms of the \. (...) This is called a definition system, denoted \. A definition system \ determines a translation function\. Any \-structure A can be uniquely definitionally expanded to a model \, called \. The reduct \ to the Q-symbols is called the definitional image\ of A. Likewise, a theory T in \ may be extended a definitional extension \; the restriction of this extension \ to \ is called the definitional image\ of T. If \ and \ are in disjoint signatures and \, we say that \ and \ are definitionally equivalent and \). Some results relating these notions are given, culminating in two characterization theorems for the definitional equivalence of structures and theories. (shrink)

As a prolegomenon to understanding the sense in which dualities are theoretical equivalences, we investigate the intuitive `equivalence' of hyper-regular Lagrangian and Hamiltonian classical mechanics. We show that the symplectification of these theories provides a sense in which they are isomorphic, and mutually and canonically definable through an analog of `common definitional extension'.

Two first-order logic theories are definitionally equivalent if and only if there is a bijection between their model classes that preserves isomorphisms and ultraproducts (Theorem 2). This is a variant of a prior theorem of van Benthem and Pearce. In Example 2, uncountably many pairs of definitionally inequivalent theories are given such that their model categories are concretely isomorphic via bijections that preserve ultraproducts in the model categories up to isomorphism. Based on these results, we settle several conjectures of Barrett, (...) Glymour and Halvorson. (shrink)

In the literature, there have been several methods and definitions for working out whether two theories are “equivalent” or not. In this article, we do something subtler. We provide a means to measure distances between formal theories. We introduce two natural notions for such distances. The first one is that of axiomatic distance, but we argue that it might be of limited interest. The more interesting and widely applicable notion is that of conceptual distance which measures the minimum number of (...) concepts that distinguish two theories. For instance, we use conceptual distance to show that relativistic and classical kinematics are distinguished by one concept only. (shrink)