A calculus of names is a logical theory describing relations between names. By a pure calculus of names we mean a quantifier-free formulation of such a theory, based on classical propositional calculus. An axiomatisation of a pure calculus of names is presented and its completeness is discussed. It is shown that the axiomatisation is complete in three different ways: with respect to a set theoretical model, with respect to Leśniewski's Ontology and in a sense defined with the use of axiomatic (...) rejection. The independence of axioms is proved. A decision procedure based on syntactic transformations and models defined in the domain of only two members is defined. (shrink)

The propositional fragment L 1 of Leniewski's ontology is the smallest class (of formulas) containing besides all the instances of tautology the formulas of the forms: (a, b) (a, a), (a, b) (b,). (a, c) and (a, b) (b, c). (b, a) being closed under detachment. The purpose of this paper is to furnish another more constructive proof than that given earlier by one of us for: Theorem A is provable in L 1 iff TA is a thesis of first-order (...) predicate logic with equality, where T is a translation of the formulas of L 1 into those of first-order predicate logic with equality such that T(a, b) = FblxFax (Russeltian-type definite description), TA B = TA TB, T A = TA, etc. (shrink)

In this paper, we shall give another proof of the faithfulness of Blass translation of the propositional fragment \ of Leśniewski’s ontology in the modal logic \ by means of Hintikka formula. And we extend the result to von Wright-type deontic logics, i.e., ten Smiley-Hanson systems of monadic deontic logic. As a result of observing the proofs we shall give general theorems on the faithfulness of B-translation with respect to normal modal logics complete to certain sets of well-known accessibility relations (...) with a restriction that transitivity and symmetry are not set at the same time. As an application of the theorems, for example, B-translation is faithful for the provability logic \ ), that is, \ \ \ \supset \Box \phi \). The faithfulness also holds for normal modal logics, e.g., \, \, \, \. We shall conclude this paper with the section of some open problems and conjectures. (shrink)

In this paper, we shall show that the following translation \(I^M\) from the propositional fragment \(\bf L_1\) of Leśniewski's ontology to modal logic \(\bf KTB\) is sound: for any formula \(\phi\) and \(\psi\) of \(\bf L_1\), it is defined as (M1) \(I^M(\phi \vee \psi) = I^M(\phi) \vee I^M(\psi)\), (M2) \(I^M(\neg \phi) = \neg I^M(\phi)\), (M3) \(I^M(\epsilon ab) = \Diamond p_a \supset p_a. \wedge. \Box p_a \supset \Box p_b.\wedge. \Diamond p_b \supset p_a\), where \(p_a\) and \(p_b\) are propositional variables corresponding to (...) the name variables \(a\) and \(b\), respectively. In the last, we shall give some comments including some open problems and my conjectures. (shrink)

With material on his early philosophical views, his contributions to set theory and his work on nominalism and higher-order quantification, this book offers a uniquely expansive critical commentary on one of analytical philosophy’s great ...

Sobocinski in his paper on Leśniewski's solution to Russell's paradox (1949b) argued that Leśniewski has succeeded in explaining it away. The general strategy of this alleged explanation is presented. The key element of this attempt is the distinction between the collective (mereological) and the distributive (set-theoretic) understanding of the set. The mereological part of the solution, although correct, is likely to fall short of providing foundations of mathematics. I argue that the remaining part of the solution which suggests a specific (...) reading of the distributive interpretation is unacceptable. It follows from it that every individual is an element of every individual. Finally, another Leśniewskian-style approach which uses so-called higher-order epsilon connectives is used and its weakness is indicated. (shrink)

Stanisław Leśniewski developed a system of logic and foundations of mathematics that considerably differs from Russell and Whitehead’s system. The difference between these two approaches to logic is significant primarily in the case of Leśniewski’s calculus of names, Ontology, and the concept of names that it contains. Russell’s theory of descriptions played a much more important role than Leśniewski’s concept of names in the history of philosophy. In response to that, several researchers aimed to approximate Leśniewski’s concept of names to (...) Russell’s theory. There are several such attempts. This paper presents an interpretation that was suggested by Arthur Prior. Prior interpreted Leśniewskian names as class names. This interpretation was rejected by such prominent Leśniewskian scholars as Peter Simons or Rafal Urbaniak. According to Simons, class names oppose Leśniewski’s ontological views. Urbaniak claimed that Prior’s interpretation of Leśniewskian names as class names is unclear. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that from the formal point of view, Prior’s interpretation could be justified. (shrink)

A structure A for the language L, which is the first-order language (without equality) whose only nonlogical symbol is the binary predicate symbol , is called a quasi -struoture iff (a) the universe A of A consists of sets and (b) a b is true in A ([p) a = {p } & p b] for every a and b in A, where a(b) is the name of a (b). A quasi -structure A is called an -structure iff (c) {p (...) } A whenever p a A. Then a closed formula in L is derivable from Leniewski's axiom x, y[x y u (u x) u; v(u, v x u v) u(u x u y)] (from the axiom x, y(x y x x) x, y, z(x y z y x z)) iff is true in every -structure (in every quasi -structure). (shrink)