Ontic structuralists claim that there are no individual objects, and that reality should instead be thought of as a “web of relations”. It is difficult to make this metaphysical picture precise, however, since languages usually characterize the world by describing the objects that exist in it. This paper proposes a solution to the problem; I argue that when discourse is reformulated in the language of the calculus of relations ‐ an algebraic logic developed by Alfred Tarski ‐ it can be (...) interpreted without presupposing the existence of objects. What is distinctive about the language of the calculus is that it contains no operator that resembles a quantifier, and yet it can be used to paraphrase any sentence expressible in first‐order logic. Since the use of a first‐order quantifier (or some similar operator) is usually what establishes commitment to an ontology of objects, and since the calculus of relations eschews the quantifier in favor of a composition operator that can be given a natural interpretation consistent with structuralist metaphysics, the calculus is an ideal language for the structuralist to use to describe the world. (shrink)

The book presents a thoroughly elaborated logical theory of generalized truth-values understood as subsets of some established set of truth values. After elucidating the importance of the very notion of a truth value in logic and philosophy, we examine some possible ways of generalizing this notion. The useful four-valued logic of first-degree entailment by Nuel Belnap and the notion of a bilattice constitute the basis for further generalizations. By doing so we elaborate the idea of a multilattice, and most notably, (...) a trilattice of truth values – a specific algebraic structure with information ordering and two distinct logical orderings, one for truth and another for falsity. Each logical order not only induces its own logical vocabulary, but determines also its own entailment relation. We consider both semantic and syntactic ways of formalizing these relations and construct various logical calculi. (shrink)

This essay is about how the notion of “structure” in ontic structuralism might be made precise. More specifically, my aim is to make precise the idea that the structure of the world is given by the relations inhering in the world, in such a way that the relations are ontologically prior to their relata. The central claim is the following: one can do so by giving due attention to the relationships that hold between those relations, by making use of certain (...) notions from algebraic logic. (shrink)

Our concern is the axiomatisation problem for modal and algebraic logics that correspond to various fragments of two-variable first-order logic with counting quantifiers. In particular, we consider modal products with Diff, the propositional unimodal logic of the difference operator. We show that the two-dimensional product logic $Diff \times Diff$ is non-finitely axiomatisable, but can be axiomatised by infinitely many Sahlqvist axioms. We also show that its ‘square’ version (the modal counterpart of the substitution and equality free fragment of two-variable first-order (...) logic with counting to two) is non-finitely axiomatisable over $Diff \times Diff$ , but can be axiomatised by adding infinitely many Sahlqvist axioms. These are the first examples of products of finitely axiomatisable modal logics that are not finitely axiomatisable, but axiomatisable by explicit infinite sets of canonical axioms. (shrink)

We show that the conceptual distance between any two theories of first-order logic is the same as the generator distance between their Lindenbaum–Tarski algebras of concepts. As a consequence of this, we show that, for any two arbitrary mathematical structures, the generator distance between their meaning algebras (also known as cylindric set algebras) is the same as the conceptual distance between their first-order logic theories. As applications, we give a complete description for the distances between meaning algebras corresponding to structures (...) having at most three elements and show that this small network represents all the possible conceptual distances between complete theories. As a corollary of this, we will see that there are only two non-trivial structures definable on three-element sets up to conceptual equivalence (i.e., up to elementary plus definitional equivalence). (shrink)

We survey various results on the relationship among neat embeddings (a notion special to cylindric algebras), complete representations, omitting types, and amalgamation. A hitherto unpublished application of algebraic logic to omitting types of first-order logic is given.

In this paper, we consider predicate logic with two individual variables and general assignment models (where the set of assignments of the variables into a model is allowed to be an arbitrary subset of the usual one). We prove that there is a statement such that no general assignment model in which it is true can be finitely axiomatized. We do this by showing that the free relativized cylindric algebras of dimension two are not atomic.

A cylindric algebra atom structure is said to be strongly representable if all atomic cylindric algebras with that atom structure are representable. This is equivalent to saying that the full complex algebra of the atom structure is a representable cylindric algebra. We show that for any finite n >3, the class of all strongly representable n-dimensional cylindric algebra atom structures is not closed under ultraproducts and is therefore not elementary. Our proof is based on the following construction. From an arbitrary (...) undirected, loop-free graph Γ, we construct an n-dimensional atom structure E(Γ), and prove, for infinite Γ, that E(Γ) is a strongly representable cylindric algebra atom structure if and only if the chromatic number of Γ is infinite. A construction of Erdős shows that there are graphs (k < ω)with infinite chromatic number, but having a non-principal ultraproduct $\prod _D\Gamma _k $ whose chromatic number is just two. It follows that $E(\Gamma _k )$ is strongly representable (each k < ω) but $\Pi _D E(\Gamma _k)$ is not. (shrink)