The central contention of this book is that second-order logic has a central role to play in laying the foundations of mathematics. In order to develop the argument fully, the author presents a detailed description of higher-order logic, including a comprehensive discussion of its semantics. He goes on to demonstrate the prevalence of second-order concepts in mathematics and the extent to which mathematical ideas can be formulated in higher-order logic. He also shows how first-order languages are often insufficient to codify (...) many concepts in contemporary mathematics, and thus that both first- and higher-order logics are needed to fully reflect current work. Throughout, the emphasis is on discussing the associated philosophical and historical issues and the implications they have for foundational studies. For the most part, the author assumes little more than a familiarity with logic comparable to that provided in a beginning graduate course which includes the incompleteness of arithmetic and the Lowenheim-Skolem theorems. All those concerned with the foundations of mathematics will find this a thought-provoking discussion of some of the central issues in the field today. (shrink)

With his customary incisiveness, W. V. Quine presents logic as the product of two factors, truth and grammar-but argues against the doctrine that the logical truths are true because of grammar or language. Rather, in presenting a general theory of grammar and discussing the boundaries and possible extensions of logic, Quine argues that logic is not a mere matter of words.

One innovation in this paper is its identification, analysis, and description of a troubling ambiguity in the word ‘argument’. In one sense ‘argument’ denotes a premise-conclusion argument: a two-part system composed of a set of sentences—the premises—and a single sentence—the conclusion. In another sense it denotes a premise-conclusion-mediation argument—later called an argumentation: a three-part system composed of a set of sentences—the premises—a single sentence—the conclusion—and complex of sentences—the mediation. The latter is often intended to show that the conclusion follows from (...) the premises. The complementarity and interrelation of premise-conclusion arguments and premise-conclusion-mediation arguments resonate throughout the rest of the paper which articulates the conceptual structure found in logic from Aristotle to Tarski. This 1972 paper can be seen as anticipating Corcoran’s signature work: the more widely read 1989 paper, Argumentations and Logic, Argumentation 3, 17–43. MR91b:03006. The 1972 paper was translated into Portuguese. The 1989 paper was translated into Spanish, Portuguese, and Persian. (shrink)

The major point of contention among the philosophers and mathematicians who have written about the independence results for the continuum hypothesis (CH) and related questions in set theory has been the question of whether these results give reason to doubt that the independent statements have definite truth values. This paper concerns the views of G. Kreisel, who gives arguments based on second order logic that the CH does have a truth value. The view defended here is that although Kreisel's conclusion (...) is correct, his arguments are unsatisfactory. Later sections of the paper advance a different argument that the independence results do not show lack of truth values. (shrink)

Understanding the Infinite is a loosely connected series of essays on the nature of the infinite in mathematics. The chapters contain much detail, most of which is interesting, but the reader is not given many clues concerning what concepts and ideas are relevant for later developments in the book. There are, however, many technical cross-references, so the reader can expect to spend much time flipping backward and forward.

Because of its capacity to characterize mathematical concepts and structures?a capacity which first-order languages clearly lack?second-order languages recommend themselves as a convenient framework for much of mathematics, including set theory. This paper is about the credentials of second-order logic:the reasons for it to be considered logic, its relations with set theory, and especially the efficacy with which it performs its role of the underlying logic of set theory.

Does V = L? Is the Axiom of Constructibility true? Most people with an opinion would answer no. But on what grounds? Despite the near unanimity with which V = L is declared false, the literature reveals no clear consensus on what counts as evidence against the hypothesis and no detailed analysis of why the facts of the sort cited constitute evidence one way or another. Unable to produce a well-developed argument one way or the other, some observers despair, retreating (...) to unattractive fall-back positions, e.g., that the decision on whether or not V = L is a matter of personal aesthetics. I would prefer to avoid such conclusions, if possible. If we are to believe that L is not V, as so many would urge, then there ought to be good reasons for this belief, reasons that can be stated clearly and subjected to rational evaluation. Though no complete argument has been presented, the literature does contain a number of varied argument fragments, and it is worth asking whether some of these might be developed into a persuasive case.One particularly simple approach would be to note that the existence of a measurable cardinal implies that V ≠ L,1and to argue that there is a measurable cardinal. The drawback to this approach is that its implying V ≠ L cannot then be counted as evidence in favor of MC, as it often is. Indeed, there seems to have been considerable sentiment against V = L even before the proof of its negation from MC,2and this sentiment must either be accounted for as reasonable or explained away as an aberration of some kind. (shrink)

Some mathematical theories are thought to have intended interpretations: they are thought to be about a reasonably well defined subject matter. For such theories, an intended interpretation is also presumed to encompass the intuitive concepts that the theory represents formally. Thus intended interpretations play a semantic, an ontological and an epistemological role: they give the preferred reference of the terms of the theory; they embody a conception of the objects described by the theory; and they are a source of evidence (...) for judging the adequacy of proposed axiomatizations. ;Two series of questions naturally arise: are there intended interpretations? And if so, how are they determined? In the context of set theory, these questions summarize the "Skolem problem," for it is most prominently displayed in the considerations relative to the Skolem paradox. According to some, the challenge posed by the Skolem problem is met only by a strong variety of platonism about mathematical objects. It is also thought that one must embrace this variety of platonism in order to account for the epistemological role of intended interpretations. ;I argue against this conception, with particular regard to the case of set theory. The thesis is that skeptical challenges such as those mentioned can be rejected on the basis of a moderately realist view according to which the intended interpretation of this theory is largely dependent upon the logical and inferential practices which the theory codifies. The centerpiece of the argument is the role played by the axiom of Choice in the formation of the notion of set which is at the basis of the modern understanding of set theory. While Choice, as platonists typically argue, is essential to a proper understanding of set-theoretical ontology, it cannot be easily justified in platonist terms, as a feature of that ontology. Rather, I argue that Choice is a logical principle: it is intrinsically tied to the laws of quantification, and the notion of choice function itself responds to a Tarskian criterion for the distinction between logical and non-logical notions. This approach also illuminates some of Skolem's original contributions to the philosophy of logic. (shrink)