- Submit
-
Browse
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- More
Switch to: Citations
References in:
Add references
You must login to add references.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We prove that the Lambek calculus is complete w.r.t. L-models, i.e., free semigroup models. We also prove the completeness w.r.t. relativized relational models over the natural linear order of integers. |
|
|
|
|
|
The problem of whether Lambek Calculus is complete with respect to (w.r.t.) relational semantics, has been raised several times, cf. van Benthem (1989a) and van Benthem (1991). In this paper, we show that the answer is in the affirmative. More precisely, we will prove that that version of the Lambek Calculus which does not use the empty sequence is strongly complete w.r.t. those relational Kripke-models where the set of possible worlds,W, is a transitive binary relation, while that version of the (...) |
|
|
|
|
|
Models for the Lambek calculus of syntactic categories surveyed here are based on frames that are in principle of the same type as Kripke frames for intuitionistic logic. These models are extracted from the literature on models for relevant logics, in particular the ternary relationed models introduced in the early seventies. The purpose of this brief survey is to locate some open completeness problems for variants of the Lambek calculus in the context of completeness results based on various types of (...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geach’s rich paper ‘A Program for Syntax’ introduced many ideas into the arena of categorial grammar, not all of which have been given the attention they warrant in the thirty years since its first publication. Rather surprisingly, one of our findings (Section 3 below) is that the paper not only does not contain a statement of what has widely come to be known as “Geach’s Rule”, but in fact presents considerations which are inimical to the adoption of the rule in (...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A number of general points behind the story of this paper may be worth setting out separately, now that we have come to the end.There is perhaps one obvious omission to be addressed right away. Although the word “information” has occurred throughout this paper, it must have struck the reader that we have had nothing to say on what information is. In this respect, our theories may be like those in physics: which do not explain what “energy” is (a notion (...) |
|
|
|
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-7674574dd6-8q2d6 uwo