Pretheoretically, ‘all believers are immortal’ is about all believers, but B is not about any unbeliever. Similarly, ‘all mortals are unbelievers’ is not about any immortal, but M is about all mortals. But B and M are logically equivalent universal generalizations, so arguably they are about exactly the same objects; by, they are about those mortals who are unbelievers, contradicting. If one responds by giving up, is there still a sense in which B treats unbelievers differently from believers? I argue (...) that there is. B is uninformative about unbelievers but informative about believers, in the following sense: for any object o, the information that B provides only about o—namely, ‘o is a believer only if o is immortal’—is entailed by ‘o is an unbeliever’ but not by ‘o is a believer’. (shrink)

Quantified modal logic has reputation for complexity. Completeness results for the various systems appear piecemeal. Different tactics are used for different systems, and success of a given method seems sensitive to many factors, including the specific combination of choices made for the quantifiers, terms, identity, and the strength of the underlying propositional modal logic. The lack of a unified framework in which to view QMLs and their completeness properties puts pressure on those who develop, apply, and teach QML to work (...) with the simplest systems, namely those that adopt the Barcan Formulas and predicate logic rules for the quantifiers. In these systems, the quantifier ranges over a fixed domain of possible individuals, so advocates of these logics are sometimes called possibilists. A literature has grown up rationalizing the choice of possibilist logics despite ordinary intuitions that the resulting theorems are too strong.Williamson even takes the view that the complications to be faced within the weaker logics “are a warning sign of philosophical error”. It is the purpose of this paper to show that abandonment of the weaker QMLs is excessively fainthearted, since most QMLs can be given relatively simple formulations within one general framework. Given the straightforward nature of the systems and their completeness results, the purported complications evaporate, along with any philosophical warnings one might have associated with them. (shrink)

Table of Formal and Descriptivists Ontologists (PDF - from Bernard Bolzano to present time) Ontologists of the 19th and 20th Centuries (a selection of critical judgments about some of the greatest philosophers of the recent past) Living Ontologists (a list of authors with an interest in ontology, with synthetic bibliographies).

Partial functions are ubiquitous in both mathematics and computer science. Therefore, it is imperative that the underlying logical formalism for a general-purpose mechanized mathematics system provide strong support for reasoning about partial functions. Unfortunately, the common logical formalisms — first-order logic, type theory, and set theory — are usually only adequate for reasoning about partial functionsin theory. However, the approach to partial functions traditionally employed by mathematicians is quite adequatein practice. This paper shows how the traditional approach to partial functions (...) can be formalized in a range of formalisms that includes first-order logic, simple type theory, and Von-Neumann—Bernays—Gödel set theory. It argues that these new formalisms allow one to directly reason about partial functions; are based on natural, well-understood, familiar principles; and can be effectively implemented in mechanized mathematics systems. (shrink)

A free logic is one in which a singular term can fail to refer to an existent object, for example, `Vulcan' or `5/0'. This essay demonstrates the fruitfulness of a version of this non-classical logic of terms (negative free logic) by showing (1) how it can be used not only to repair a looming inconsistency in Quine's theory of predication, the most influential semantical theory in contemporary philosophical logic, but also (2) how Beeson, Farmer and Feferman, among others, use it (...) to provide a natural foundation for partial functions in programming languages. Vis à vis (2), the question is raised whether the Beeson-Farmer-Feferman approach is adequate to the treatment of partial functions in all programming languages. Gumb and the author say No, and suggest a way of handling the refractory cases by means of positive free logic. Finally, Antonelli's solution of a problem associated with the Gumb-Lambert proposal is mentioned. (shrink)

A sentence containing a number of definite descriptions, each lying within the scope of its predecessor, is naturally read as asserting the uniqueness of a sequence of objects satisfying the descriptions. The project of providing a general uniform procedure for eliminating embedded definite descriptions that gets this and other logical forms right is impeded by several puzzles.

This paper is a reaction to G. Küng's and J. T. Canty's Substitutional Quantification and Leniewskian quantifiers'Theoria 36 (1970), 165–182. I reject their arguments that quantifiers in Ontology cannot be referentially interpreted but I grant that there is what can be called objectual — referential interpretation of quantifiers and that because of the unrestricted quantification in Ontology the quantifiers in Ontology should not be given a so-called objectual-referential interpretation. I explain why I am in agreement with Küng and Canty's recommendation (...) that Ontology's quantifiers not be substitutionally interpreted even if Leniewski intended them to be so interpreted. A notion of an interpretation which is referential but yet which does not interpret as an assertor of existence of objects in a domain is developed. It is then shown that a first order version of Ontology is satisfied by those special kind of referential interpretations which read as Something as epposed to Something existing. (shrink)