David Kaplan observed in Kaplan that the principle \\) cannot be verified at a world in a standard possible worlds model for a quantified bimodal propositional language. This raises a puzzle for certain interpretations of the operator Q: it seems that some proposition p is such that is not possible to query p, and p alone. On the other hand, Arthur Prior had observed in Prior that on pain of contradiction, ∀p is Q only if one true proposition is Q (...) and one false proposition is Q. The two observations are related: ∀p is elusive in that it is not possible for the proposition to be uniquely Q. Kaplan based his model-theoretic observation on Cantor’s theorem, but there is a less well-known link between this simple set-theoretic observation and Prior’s remark. We generalize the link to develop a heuristic designed to move from Cantor’s theorem to the observation that a variety of sentences of the bimodal language express propositions that cannot be Q uniquely. We highlight the analogy between some of these results and some set-theoretic antinomies and suggest that the phenomenon is richer than one may have anticipated. (shrink)

Set theory, it has been contended, developed from its beginnings through a progression ofmathematicalmoves, despite being intertwined with pronounced metaphysical attitudes and exaggerated foundational claims that have been held on its behalf. In this paper, the seminal results of set theory are woven together in terms of a unifying mathematical motif, one whose transmutations serve to illuminate the historical development of the subject. The motif is foreshadowed in Cantor's diagonal proof, and emerges in the interstices of the inclusion vs. membership (...) distinction, a distinction only clarified at the turn of this century, remarkable though this may seem. Russell runs with this distinction, but is quickly caught on the horns of his well-known paradox, an early expression of our motif. The motif becomes fully manifest through the study of functionsof the power set of a set into the set in the fundamental work of Zermelo on set theory. His first proof in 1904 of his Well-Ordering Theoremis a central articulation containing much of what would become familiar in the subsequent development of set theory. Afterwards, the motif is cast by Kuratowski as a fixed point theorem, one subsequently abstracted to partial orders by Bourbaki in connection with Zorn's Lemma. Migrating beyond set theory, that generalization becomes cited as the strongest of fixed point theorems useful in computer science.Section 1 describes the emergence of our guiding motif as a line of development from Cantor's diagonal proof to Russell's Paradox, fueled by the clarification of the inclusion vs. membership distinction. Section 2 engages the motif as fully participating in Zermelo's work on the Well-Ordering Theorem and as newly informing on Cantor's basic result that there is no bijection. Then Section 3 describes in connection with Zorn's Lemma the transformation of the motif into an abstract fixed point theorem, one accorded significance in computer science. (shrink)

Frege’s _Basic Law V_ is inconsistent. The reason often given is that it posits the existence of an injection from the larger collection of first-order concepts to the smaller collection of objects. This article explains what is right and what is wrong with this diagnosis.

Proof, Computation and Agency: Logic at the Crossroads provides an overview of modern logic and its relationship with other disciplines. As a highlight, several articles pursue an inspiring paradigm called 'social software', which studies patterns of social interaction using techniques from logic and computer science. The book also demonstrates how logic can join forces with game theory and social choice theory. A second main line is the logic-language-cognition connection, where the articles collected here bring several fresh perspectives. Finally, the book (...) takes up Indian logic and its connections with epistemology and the philosophy of science, showing how these topics run naturally into each other. (shrink)