In this paper, we investigate (1) what can be salvaged from the original project of "logicism" and (2) what is the best that can be done if we lower our sights a bit. Logicism is the view that "mathematics is reducible to logic alone", and there are a variety of reasons why it was a non-starter. We consider the various ways of weakening this claim so as to produce a "neologicism". Three ways are discussed: (1) expand the conception of logic (...) used in the reduction, (2) allow the addition of analytic-sounding principles to logic so that the reduction is not to "logic alone" but to logic and truths knowable a priori, and (3) revise the conception of "reducible". We show how the current versions of neologicism fit into this classification scheme, and then focus on a kind of neologicism which we take to have the most potential for achieving the epistemological goals of the original logicist project. We argue that that the "weaker" the form of neologicism, the more likely it is to be a new form of logicism, and show how our preferred system, though mathematically weak, is metaphysically and epistemogically strong, and can "reduce" arbitrary mathematical theories to logic and analytic truths, if given a legitimate new sense of "reduction". (shrink)

We introduce an extension of the propositional calculus to include abstracts of predicates and quantifiers, employing a single rule along with a novel comprehension schema and a principle of extensionality, which are substituted for the Bernays postulates for quantifiers and the comprehension schemata of ZF and other set theories. We prove that it is consistent in any finite Boolean subset lattice. We investigate the antinomies of Russell, Cantor, Burali-Forti, and others, and discuss the relationship of the system to other set-theoretic (...) systems ZF, NBG, and NF. We discuss two methods of axiomatizing higher order quantification and abstraction, and then very briefly discuss the application of one of these methods to areas of mathematics outside of logic. (shrink)

Equational hybrid propositional type theory ) is a combination of propositional type theory, equational logic and hybrid modal logic. The structures used to interpret the language contain a hierarchy of propositional types, an algebra and a Kripke frame. The main result in this paper is the proof of completeness of a calculus specifically defined for this logic. The completeness proof is based on the three proofs Henkin published last century: Completeness in type theory, The completeness of the first-order functional calculus (...) and Completeness in propositional type theory. More precisely, from and we take the idea of building the model described by the maximal consistent set; in our case the maximal consistent set has to be named, \-saturated and extensionally algebraic-saturated due to the hybrid and equational nature of \. From, we use the result that any element in the hierarchy has a name. The challenge was to deal with all the heterogeneous components in an integrated system. (shrink)

Equational hybrid propositional type theory ) is a combination of propositional type theory, equational logic and hybrid modal logic. The structures used to interpret the language contain a hierarchy of propositional types, an algebra and a Kripke frame. The main result in this paper is the proof of completeness of a calculus specifically defined for this logic. The completeness proof is based on the three proofs Henkin published last century: Completeness in type theory, The completeness of the first-order functional calculus (...) and Completeness in propositional type theory. More precisely, from and we take the idea of building the model described by the maximal consistent set; in our case the maximal consistent set has to be named, \-saturated and extensionally algebraic-saturated due to the hybrid and equational nature of \. From, we use the result that any element in the hierarchy has a name. The challenge was to deal with all the heterogeneous components in an integrated system. (shrink)

This paper traces the development of Quine's ontological ideas throughout his early logical work in the period before 1948. It shows that his ontological criterion critically depends on this work in logic. The use of quantifiers as logical primitives and the introduction of general variables in 1936, the search for adequate comprehension axioms, and problems with proper classes, all forced Quine to consider ontological questions. I also show that Quine's rejection of intensional entities goes back to his generalisation of Principia (...) Mathematica in 1932. (shrink)