Carnap's philosophy is examined from new viewpoints, including three important distinctions: (i) language as calculus vs language as universal medium; (ii) different senses of completeness: (iii) standard vs nonstandard interpretations of (higher-order) logic. (i) Carnap favored in 1930-34 the "formal mode of speech," a corollary to the universality assumption. He later gave it up partially but retained some of its ingredients, e.g., the one-domain assumption. (ii) Carnap's project of creating a universal self-referential language is encouraged by (ii) and by the (...) author's recent work. (iii) Carnap was aware of (iii) and occasionally used the standard interpretation, but was not entirely clear of the nature of the contrast. (shrink)

Informally, structural properties of mathematical objects are usually characterized in one of two ways: either as properties expressible purely in terms of the primitive relations of mathematical theories, or as the properties that hold of all structurally similar mathematical objects. We present two formal explications corresponding to these two informal characterizations of structural properties. Based on this, we discuss the relation between the two explications. As will be shown, the two characterizations do not determine the same class of mathematical properties. (...) From this observation we draw some philosophical conclusions about the possibility of a ‘correct’ analysis of structural properties. (shrink)

The representation of quantification over relations in monadic third-order logic is discussed; it is shown to be possible in numerous special cases of foundational interest, but not in general unless something akin to the Axiom of Choice is assumed.

Both second-order logic and set theory can be used as a foundation for mathematics, that is, as a formal language in which propositions of mathematics can be expressed and proved. We take it upon ourselves in this paper to compare the two approaches, second-order logic on one hand and set theory on the other hand, evaluating their merits and weaknesses. We argue that we should think of first-order set theory as a very high-order logic.