In this paper, we consider some contributions to the model theory of the logic of formal inconsistency $\mathsf{QmbC}$ as a reply to Walter Carnielli, Marcelo Coniglio, Rodrigo Podiacki and Tarcísio Rodrigues’ call for a ‘wider model theory.’ This call demands that we align the practices and techniques of model theory for logics of formal inconsistency as closely as possible with those employed in classical model theory. The key result is a proof that the Keisler–Shelah isomorphism theorem holds for $\mathsf{QmbC}$, i.e. (...) that the strong elementary equivalence of two $\mathsf{QmbC}$ models $\mathfrak{A}$ and $\mathfrak{B}$ is equivalent to them having strongly isomorphic ultrapowers. As intermediate steps, we introduce some notions of model-theoretic equivalence between $\mathsf{QmbC}$ models, explicitly prove Łoś’ theorem and introduce a useful technique of model-theoretic ‘atomization’ in which the satisfaction sets of non-deterministically evaluated formulae are associated with new predicates. Finally, we consider some of the extensions of $\mathsf{QmbC}$, explicitly showing that Keisler–Shelah holds for $\mathsf{QCi}$ and suggesting that it holds of extensions like $\mathsf{QCila}$ and $\mathsf{QCia}$ as well. (shrink)

Strict finitism posits a largest natural number. The view is usually thought to be objectionably arbitrary. After all, there seems to be no apparent reason as to why the natural numbers should ‘stop’ at a specific point and not a bit later on the natural line. Drawing on how arguments from arbitrariness are employed in mereology, I propose several ways of understanding this objection against strict finitism. No matter how it is understood, I argue that it is always found wanting.