The paper challenges a widely held interpretation of Frege's conception of logic on which the constituent clauses of basic law V have the same sense. I argue against this interpretation by first carefully looking at the development of Frege's thoughts in Grundlagen with respect to the status of abstraction principles. In doing so, I put forth a new interpretation of Grundlagen §64 and Frege's idea of ‘recarving of content’. I then argue that there is strong evidence in Grundgesetze that Frege (...) did not hold the relevant sense-identity claim regarding basic law V. (shrink)

Frege's concern in GGI §10 is neither with the epistemological issue of how we come to know about value-ranges, nor with the semantic-metaphysical issue of whether we have said enough about such objects in order to ensure that any kind of reference to them is possible. The problem which occupies Frege in GGI §10 is the general problem according to which we ‘cannot yet decide’, for any arbitrary function, what value ‘’ has if ‘ℵ’ is a canonical value-range name. This (...) is a problem with the ‘reference’ of value-range names, but only in the weak sense that, if we do not exercise care, value-range terms might become ‘bedeutungslos’ for purely formal reasons. Frege addresses the general problem only for the primitive function- and object-names he has already introduced into his concept-script. I argue that this methodology was perfectly intentional: his intention for GG in general, on display in GGI §10, is to check, for each primitive function- and object-name, as it is introduced into concept-script, whether it interacts with the other primitive names which have already been introduced in such a way that these atomic combinations of primitive names do not become bedeutungslos. If there is a risk of producing a bedeutungslos combination, Frege will make an arbitrary stipulation to ensure that logical hygiene is maintained. I argue that this interpretation does not violate some of the other principal commitments of GG. (shrink)

Why should one think Frege's definition of the ancestral correct? It can be proven to be extensionally correct, but the argument uses arithmetical induction, and that seems to undermine Frege's claim to have justified induction in purely logical terms. I discuss such circularity objections and then offer a new definition of the ancestral intended to be intensionally correct; its extensional correctness then follows without proof. This new definition can be proven equivalent to Frege's without any use of arithmetical induction. This (...) proves, without any use of arithmetical induction, that Frege's definition is extensionally correct and so answers the circularity objections. (shrink)

Frege's work was largely devoted to an attempt to argue that the'basic laws of arithmetic' are truths of logic. That attempt had both philosophical and formal aspects. The present note offers an introduction to both of these, so that readers will be able to appreciate contemporary discussions of the philosophical significance of 'Frege's Theorem'.

This paper presents a new approach to the class-theoretic paradoxes. In the first part of the paper, I will distinguish classes from sets, describe the function of class talk, and present several reasons for postulating type-free classes. This involves applications to the problem of unrestricted quantification, reduction of properties, natural language semantics, and the epistemology of mathematics. In the second part of the paper, I will present some axioms for type-free classes. My approach is loosely based on the Gödel–Russell idea (...) of limited ranges of significance. It is shown how to derive the second-order Dedekind–Peano axioms within that theory. I conclude by discussing whether the theory can be used as a solution to the problem of unrestricted quantification. In an appendix, I prove the consistency of the class theory relative to Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. (shrink)