Axiomatizing geometric constructions

In this survey paper, we present several results linking quantifier-free axiomatizations of various Euclidean and hyperbolic geometries in languages without relation symbols to geometric constructibility theorems. Several fragments of Euclidean and hyperbolic geometries turn out to be naturally occurring only when we ask for the universal theory of the standard plane (Euclidean or hyperbolic), that can be expressed in a certain language containing only operation symbols standing for certain geometric constructions.     

Centered assertion

I suggest a way of extending Stalnaker’s account of assertion to allow for centered content. In formulating his account, Stalnaker takes the content of assertion to be uncentered propositions: entities that are evaluated for truth at a possible world. I argue that the content of assertion is sometimes centered: the content is evaluated for truth at something within a possible world. I consider Andy Egan’s proposal for extending Stalnaker’s account to allow for assertions with centered content. I argue that Egan’s account does not succeed. Instead, I propose an account on which the contents of assertion are identified with sets of multi-centered worlds. I argue that such a view not only provides a plausible account of how assertions can have centered content, but also preserves Stalnaker’s original insight that successful assertion involves the reduction of shared possibilities.     

Axiomatizing the Logic of Imagination

In a recent paper Berto introduces a semantic system for a logic of imagination, intended as positive conceivability, and aboutness of imaginative acts. This system crucially adopts elements of both the semantics of conditionals and the semantics of analytical implications in order to account for the central logical traits of the notion of truth in an act of imagination based on an explicit input. The main problem left unsolved is to put forward a complete set of axioms for the proposed system. In the present paper I offer a solution to this problem by providing a complete axiomatization of a generalization of the original semantics. The difficulty in proving completeness lies in the fact that the modalities that capture the notion of truth in an act of imagination are neither standard nor minimal, so that the construction of the canonical model and the proof of the truth lemma are to be substantially modified.

     

Axiomatizing Relativistic Dynamics without Conservation Postulates

A part of relativistic dynamics is axiomatized by simple and purely geometrical axioms formulated within first-order logic. A geometrical proof of the formula connecting relativistic and rest masses of bodies is presented, leading up to a geometric explanation of Einstein’s famous E = mc ². The connection of our geometrical axioms and the usual axioms on the conservation of mass, momentum and four-momentum is also investigated.     

Axiomatizing logics closely related to varieties

Let V be a s.f.b. (strongly finitely based, see below) variety of algebras. The central result is Theorem 2 saying that the logic defined by all matrices (A, d) with d A V is finitely based iff the A V have 1^st order definable cosets for their congruences. Theorem 3 states a similar axiomatization criterion for the logic determined by all matrices (A, ^A), A V, a term which is constant in V. Applications are given in a series of examples.     

Knowledge and suberogatory assertion

I accomplish two things in this paper. First I expose some important limitations of the contemporary literature on the norms of assertion and in the process illuminate a host of new directions and forms that an account of assertional norms might take. Second I leverage those insights to suggest a new account of the relationship between knowledge and assertion, which arguably outperforms the standard knowledge account.     

Axiomatizing collective judgment sets in a minimal logical language

We investigate under what conditions a given set of collective judgments can arise from a specific voting procedure. In order to answer this question, we introduce a language similar to modal logic for reasoning about judgment aggregation procedures. In this language, the formula expresses that is collectively accepted, or that is a group judgment based on voting. Different judgment aggregation procedures may be underlying the group decision making. Here we investigate majority voting, where holds if a majority of individuals accepts, consensus voting, where holds if all individuals accept, and dictatorship. We provide complete axiomatizations for judgment sets arising from all three aggregation procedures.     

Epistemic modals, relativism and assertion

I think that there are good reasons to adopt a relativist semantics for epistemic modal claims such as ``the treasure might be under the palm tree', according to which such utterances determine a truth value relative to something finer-grained than just a world (or a <world, time> pair). Anyone who is inclined to relativise truth to more than just worlds and times faces a problem about assertion. It's easy to be puzzled about just what purpose would be served by assertions of this kind, and how to understand what we'd be up to in our use of sentences like ``the treasure might be under the palm tree', if they have such peculiar truth conditions. After providing a very quick argument to motivate a relativist view of epistemic modals, I bring out and attempt to resolve this problem in making sense of the role of assertions with relativist truth conditions. Solving this problem should be helpful in two ways: first, it eliminates an apparently forceful objection to relativism, and second, spelling out the relativist account of assertion and communication will help to make clear just what the relativist position is, exactly, and why it's interesting. Thanks to Brian Weatherson, John Hawthorne, Daniel Stoljar, Frank Jackson, Ben Blumson, Seth Yalcin, Karen Bennett, Kent Bach, Matthew Weiner, Jonathan Kvanvig, Eric Swanson, David Chalmers, Agustin Rayo, Dustin Locke, Aaron Bronfman, Michael Allers, Ivan Mayerhofer, and to the participants at the BSPC 2005 for helpful discussion.     

The open future, bivalence and assertion

It is highly now intuitive that the future is open and the past is closed now—whereas it is unsettled whether there will be a fourth world war, it is settled that there was a first. Recently, it has become increasingly popular to claim that the intuitive openness of the future implies that contingent statements about the future, such as ‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow,’ are non-bivalent (neither true nor false). In this paper, we argue that the non-bivalence of future contingents is at odds with our pre-theoretic intuitions about the openness of the future. These intuitions are revealed by our pragmatic judgments concerning the correctness and incorrectness of assertions of future contingents. We argue that the pragmatic data together with a plausible account of assertion shows that in many cases we take future contingents to be true (or to be false), though we take the future to be open in relevant respects. It follows that appeals to intuition to support the non-bivalence of future contingents are untenable. Intuition favours bivalence.     

The relative efficacy of thought-stopping and covert assertion

The relative efficacy of Rimm's (1973) thought-stopping and covert assertion, thought-stopping alone, covert assertion alone and a placebo control was tested. All three experimental treatments were predicted to be superior to the control and differences among the experimental treatments were expected. Thirty-six volunteers with a strong fear of harmless snakes were given one of the four treatments. Results demonstrated the efficacy of the combined treatment, as had been shown in previous research, but also demonstrated the efficacy of the individual components alone. Scheffée Planned Comparisons at the post test and four week follow-up indicated that the three experimental groups were superior to the control on the three self-report and behavioral tests of fear of snakes (p < 0.01 for each) but not on a test of fears in general. Scheffée Post Hoc Comparisons showed no significant differences between the experimental groups. The possible overlapping functions of the components are discussed.