Two mereological theories are presented based on a primitive apartness relation along with binary relations of mereological excess and weak excess, respectively. It is shown that both theories are acceptable from the standpoint of constructive reasoning while remaining faithful to the spirit of classical mereology. The two theories are then compared and assessed with regard to their extensional import.

In the paper "Full development of Tarski's geometry of solids" Gruszczyński and Pietruszczak have obtained the full development of Tarski’s geometry of solids that was sketched in [14, 15]. In this paper 1 we introduce in Tarski’s theory the notion of congruence of mereological balls and then the notion of diameter of mereological ball. We prove many facts about these new concepts, e.g., we give a characterization of mereological balls in terms of its center and diameter and we prove that (...) the set of all diameters together with the relation of inequality of diameters is the dense linearly ordered set without the least and the greatest element. (shrink)

Mereological theories are based on the binary relation “being a part of”. The systematic investigations of mereology were initiated by Leśniewski. More recent authors (including Simons, Casati and Varzi, Hovda) formulated a series of first‐order mereological axioms. These axioms give rise to a plenitude of theories, which are of great philosophical interest. The paper considers first‐order mereological theories from the point of view of computable (or effective) algebra. Following the approach of Hirschfeldt, Khoussainov, Shore, and Slinko, we isolate two important (...) computability‐theoretic properties P (namely, degree spectra of structures, and effective dimensions), and consider the following problem: for a given mereological theory T, is it true that its models can realize every possible variant of the property P? If the answer is positive, then we say that the theory T is ‐universal. We obtain the following results about known mereological theories. Any theory T which is weaker than Extensional Closure Mereology (CEM) is ‐universal. A similar fact is true for the theory GM2. On the other hand, any theory stronger that CEM + (C) + (G) is not ‐universal. In particular, General Extensional Mereology is not ‐universal. (shrink)

This is the first, out of two papers, devoted to Andrzej Grzegorczyk’s point-free system of topology from Grzegorczyk :228–235, 1960. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485101). His system was one of the very first fully fledged axiomatizations of topology based on the notions of region, parthood and separation. Its peculiar and interesting feature is the definition of point, whose intention is to grasp our geometrical intuitions of points as systems of shrinking regions of space. In this part we analyze separation structures and Grzegorczyk structures, and (...) establish their properties which will be useful in the sequel. We prove that in the class of Urysohn spaces with countable chain condition, to every topologically interpreted representative of a point in the sense of Grzegorczyk’s corresponds exactly one point of a space. We also demonstrate that Tychonoff first-countable spaces give rise to complete Grzegorczyk structures. The results established below will be used in the second part devoted to points and topological spaces. (shrink)

Mereology is the theory of the relation “being a part of”. The first exact formulation of mereology is due to the Polish logician Stanisław Leśniewski. But Leśniewski’s mereology is not first-order axiomatizable, for it requires every subset of the domain to have a fusion. In recent literature, a first-order theory named General Extensional Mereology can be thought of as a first-order approximation of Leśniewski’s theory, in the sense that GEM guarantees that every definable subset of the domain has a fusion, (...) and this has been achieved by positing an axiom schema which in effect defines infinitely many axioms. Intuitively, in order to range over every definable subset, such an axiom schema seems unavoidable. But this paper will show that GEM is finitely axiomatizable and that all we need are just finitely many instances of the said axiom schema. (shrink)