In the present article two possible meanings of the term mathematical structure are discussed: a formal and a nonformal one. It is claimed that contemporary mathematics is structural only in the nonformal sense of the term. Bourbaki's definition of structure is presented as one among several attempts to elucidate the meaning of that nonformal idea by developing a formal theory which allegedly accounts for it. It is shown that Bourbaki's concept of structure was, from a mathematical point of view, a (...) superfluous undertaking. This is done by analyzing the role played by the concept, in the first place, within Bourbaki's own mathematical output. Likewise, the interaction between Bourbaki's work and the first stages of category theory is analyzed, on the basis of both published texts and personal documents. (shrink)

Fibring is recognized as one of the main mechanisms in combining logics, with great signicance in the theory and applications of mathematical logic. However, an open challenge to bring is posed by the collapsing problem: even when no symbols are shared, certain combinations of logics simply collapse to one of them, indicating that bring imposes unwanted interconnections between the given logics. Modulated bring allows a ner control of the combination, solving the collapsing problem both at the semantic and deductive levels. (...) Main properties like soundness and completeness are shown to be preserved, comparison with bring is discussed, and some important classes of examples are analyzed with respect to the collapsing problem. (shrink)

What is the fundamental insight behind truth-functionality ? When is a logic interpretable by way of a truth-functional semantics? To address such questions in a satisfactory way, a formal definition of truth-functionality from the point of view of abstract logics is clearly called for. As a matter of fact, such a definition has been available at least since the 70s, though to this day it still remains not very widely well-known. A clear distinction can be drawn between logics characterizable through: (...) (1) genuinely finite-valued truth-tabular semantics; (2) no finite-valued but only an infinite-valued truthtabular semantics; (3) no truth-tabular semantics at all. Any of those logics, however, can in principle be characterized through non-truth-functional valuation semantics, at least as soon as their associated consequence relations respect the usual tarskian postulates. So, paradoxical as that might seem at first, it turns out that truth-functional logics may be adequately characterized by non-truth-functional semantics . Now, what feature of a given logic would guarantee it to dwell in class (1) or in class (2), irrespective of its circumstantial semantic characterization? (shrink)

. The semantic collapse problem is perhaps the main difficulty associated to the very powerful mechanism for combining logics known as fibring. In this paper we propose cryptofibred semantics as a generalization of fibred semantics, and show that it provides a solution to the collapsing problem. In particular, given that the collapsing problem is a special case of failure of conservativeness, we formulate and prove a sufficient condition for cryptofibring to yield a conservative extension of the logics being combined. For (...) illustration, we revisit the example of combining intuitionistic and classical propositional logics. (shrink)

This paper is an attempt to clear some philosophical questions about the nature of logic by setting up a mathematical framework. The notion of congruence in logic is defined. A logical structure in which there is no non-trivial congruence relation, like some paraconsistent logics, is called simple. The relations between simplicity, the replacement theorem and algebraization of logic are studied (including MacLane-Curry’s theorem and a discussion about Curry’s algebras). We also examine how these concepts are related to such notions as (...) semantics, truth-functionality and bivalence. We argue that a logic, which is simple, can deserve the name logic and that the opposite view is connected with a reductionist perspective (reduction of logic to algebra). (shrink)

In the general theory of logic built up by Whitehead and Russell to furnish a basis for all mathematics there is a certain subtheory which is unique in its simplicity and precision; and though all other portions of the work have their roots in this subtheory, it itself is completely independent of them. Whereas the complete theory requires for the enunciation of its propositions real and apparent variables, which represent both individuals and propositional functions of different kinds, and as a (...) result necessitates- the introduction of the cumbersome theory of types, this subtheory uses only real variables, and these real variables represent but one kind of entity—which the authors have chosen to call elementary propositions. The most general statements are formed by merely combining these variables by means of the two primitive propositional functions of propositions Negation and Disjunction; and the entire theory is concerned with the process of asserting those combinations which it regards as true propositions, employing for this purpose a few general rules which tell how to assert new combinations from old, and a certain number of primitive assertions from which to begin. (shrink)

In 1939, Curry proposed a philosophy of mathematics he called formalism. He made this proposal in two works originally written then, although one of them was not published until 1951. These are the two philosophical works for which Curry is known, and they have left a false impression of his views. In this article, I propose to clarify Curry’s views by referring to some of his later writings on the subject. I claim that Curry’s philosophy was not what is now (...) usually called formalism, but is really a form of structuralism. (shrink)

In this paper we address some central problems of combination of logics through the study of a very simple but highly informative case, the combination of the logics of disjunction and conjunction. At first it seems that it would be very easy to combine such logics, but the following problem arises: if we combine these logics in a straightforward way, distributivity holds. On the other hand, distributivity does not arise if we use the usual notion of extension between consequence relations. (...) A detailed discussion about this phenomenon, as well as some elucidation for it, is given. (shrink)