The signature of the formal language of mereotopology contains two predicates $P$ and $C$, which stand for “being a part of” and “contact,” respectively. This paper will deal with the decidability issue of the mereotopological theories which can be formed by the axioms found in the literature. Three main results to be given are as follows: all axiomatized mereotopological theories are separable; all mereotopological theories up to $\mathbf{ACEMT}$, $\mathbf{SACEMT}$, or $\mathbf{SACEMT}^{\prime}$ are finitely inseparable; all axiomatized mereotopological theories except $\mathbf{SAX}$, $\mathbf{SAX}^{\prime}$, (...) or $\mathbf{S\overline{B}X}^{\prime}$, where $\mathbf{X}$ is strictly stronger than $\mathbf{CEMT}$, are undecidable. Then it can also be easily seen that all axiomatized mereotopological theories proved to be undecidable here are neither essentially undecidable nor strongly undecidable but are hereditarily undecidable. Result will be shown by constructing strongly undecidable mereotopological structures based on two-dimensional Euclidean space, and it will be pointed out that the same construction cannot be carried through if the language is not rich enough. (shrink)

Two mereological theories are presented based on a primitive apartness relation along with binary relations of mereological excess and weak excess, respectively. It is shown that both theories are acceptable from the standpoint of constructive reasoning while remaining faithful to the spirit of classical mereology. The two theories are then compared and assessed with regard to their extensional import.

This paper extends the axiomatic treatment of intuitionistic mereology introduced in Maffezioli and Varzi (_Synthese, 198_(S18), 4277–4302 2021 ) by examining the behavior of constructive notions of overlap and disjointness. We consider both (i) various ways of defining such notions in terms of other intuitionistic mereological primitives, and (ii) the possibility of treating them as mereological primitives of their own.