On superintuitionistic logics as fragments of proof logic extensions

Coming fromI andCl, i.e. from intuitionistic and classical propositional calculi with the substitution rule postulated, and using the sign to add a new connective there have been considered here: Grzegorozyk's logicGrz, the proof logicG and the proof-intuitionistic logicI set up correspondingly by the calculiFor any calculus we denote by the set of all formulae of the calculus and by the lattice of all logics that are the extensions of the logic of the calculus, i.e. sets of formulae containing the axioms of and closed with respect to its rules of inference. In the logiclG the sign is decoded as follows: A = (A & A). The result of placing in the formulaA before each of its subformula is denoted byTrA. The maps are defined (in the definitions of x and the decoding of is meant), by virtue of which the diagram is constructedIn this diagram the maps, x and are isomorphisms, thereforex ^–1 = ; and the maps and are the semilattice epimorphisms that are not commutative with lattice operation +. Besides, the given diagram is commutative, and the next equalities take place: ^–1 = ^–1 and = ^–1 x. The latter implies in particular that any superintuitionistic logic is a superintuitionistic fragment of some proof logic extension.     

O pojęciu zdania analitycznego

Rezultaty przedstawione w pracy niniejszej pokrywaj si czciowo z wynikami osignitymi przezR. Wójcickiego w pracy:Analityczne komponenty definicji arbitralnych. Studia Logica, t. XIV. Dotyczy to gównie rezultatów zawartych w czci pierwszej. Chciabym podkreli, i wyniki R. Wójcickiego uzyskane zostay cakowicie niezalenie od rezultatów przedstawionych w pracy obecnej.Allatum est die 16 Aprilis 1962     

Three views of demonstrative reference

Three views of demonstrative reference are examined: contextual, intentional, and quasi-intentional. According to the first, such reference is determined entirely by certain publicly accessible features of the context. According to the second, speaker intentions are criterial in demonstrative reference. And according to the third, both contextual features and intentions come into play in the determination of demonstrative reference. The first two views (both of which enjoy current popularity) are rejected as implausible; the third (originally proposed by Kaplan in Dthat) is argued to be highly plausible.     

Commentary on Boharts “The Client is the Most Important Common Factor”

The cliché Treatment operates on patient to produce effects is reversed by Bohart into Client operates on treatments and procedures to produce effects. Although this formula has the advantage of underscoring the patient's responsibility and competence, it may also overemphasize his or her role. A more balanced formula could be Process operates on both patient and client to produce effects, as it means that neither the therapist nor the client, but the process is the operator. There seems to be not much to earn, if the old hero (the therapist) is replaced by the new one (the client). A more promising perspective opens if both give up their pretence to be the operator, or the one who knows what is to be done, and listen and submit to the logic of the process that goes beyond both.     

Kenneth Strike on Liberalism,Citizenship and the Private Interest in Schooling

After indicating a number of points of agreement with the argument 0eveloped by Kenneth Strike in his article Liberalism, Citizenship and the Private Interest in Schooling, this article identifies and explores a number of queries and criticisms which arise in relation to that argument. These queries and criticisms relate especially to the nature and extent of the expansiveness involved in Strike's conception of public or common educational influence, and to the implications and justification of the claim that private educational interests enjoy a greater salience and recognition on Strike's view of public or common educational influence than on some alternative views.     

A semantical investigation into Leśniewski's axiom of his ontology

A structure A for the language L, which is the first-order language (without equality) whose only nonlogical symbol is the binary predicate symbol , is called a quasi -struoture iff (a) the universe A of A consists of sets and (b) a b is true in A ([p) a = {p } & p b] for every a and b in A, where a(b) is the name of a (b). A quasi -structure A is called an -structure iff (c) {p } A whenever p a A. Then a closed formula in L is derivable from Leniewski's axiom x, y[x y u (u x) u; v(u, v x u v) u(u x u y)] (from the axiom x, y(x y x x) x, y, z(x y z y x z)) iff is true in every -structure (in every quasi -structure).     

Utility theory with inexact preferences and degrees of preference

a–b* c–d is taken to mean that your degree of preference for a over b is less than your degree of preference for c over d. Various properties of the strength-of-preference comparison relation * are examined along with properties of simple preferences defined from *. The investigation recognizes an individual's limited ability to make precise judgments. Several utility theorems relating a–b * c–d to u(a)–u(b) are included.     

Rules in relevant logic — II: Formula representation

This paper surveys the various forms of Deduction Theorem for a broad range of relevant logics. The logics range from the basic system B of Routley-Meyer through to the system R of relevant implication, and the forms of Deduction Theorem are characterized by the various formula representations of rules that are either unrestricted or restricted in certain ways. The formula representations cover the iterated form,A ₁ .A ₂ . ... .A _n B, the conjunctive form,A ₁&A ₂ & ...A _n B, the combined conjunctive and iterated form, enthymematic version of these three forms, and the classical implicational form,A ₁&A ₂& ...A _n B. The concept of general enthymeme is introduced and the Deduction Theorem is shown to apply for rules essentially derived using Modus Ponens and Adjunction only, with logics containing either (A B)&(B C) .A C orA B .B C .A C.I acknowledge help from anonymous referees for guidance in preparing Part II, and especially for the suggestion that Theorem 9 could be expanded to fully contraction-less logics.     

A finite analog to the löwenheim-skolem theorem

The traditional model theory of first-order logic assumes that the interpretation of a formula can be given without reference to its deductive context. This paper investigates an interpretation which depends on a formula's location within a derivation. The key step is to drop the assumption that all quantified variables must have the same range and to require only that the ranges of variables in a derivation must be related in such way as to preserve the soundness of the inference rules. With each (consistent) derivation there is associated a Buridan-Volpin (orBV) structure [M, {r(x)}] which is simply a Tarski structureM for the language and a map giving the ranger(x) of each variablex in the derivation. IfLK* is (approximately) the classical sequent calculusLK of Gentzen from which the structural contraction rules have been dropped, then our main result reads: If a set of first-ordered formulas has a Tarski modelM, then from any normal derivationD inLK* of can be constructed aBV modelM _D=[M, {r(x)}] of where each ranger(x) is finite.Presented byMelvin Fitting;     

What is Psychotherapy for? A Plausible Alternative to Empirically Supported Therapies,Therapy Relationships,and Practice Guidelines

Task forces come up with empirically supported therapies and therapist-client relationships. A careful study of their research provides an empirically supported answer to the long-standing question of what psychotherapy is for. Accordingly, if your way of doing therapy falls outside the empirically based boundary, (a) you can risk declining their practice guidelines; (b) you can develop your own practice guidelines; and (c) you can pursue some exciting implications from having an alternative set of guidelines for how to do psychotherapy. A strategy is proposed as a plausible alternative to the task forces empirically based strategy.     

On a certain class ofm-address machines

Conclusion It follows from the proved theorems that ifM =Q, (whereQ={0,q ₁,q ₂,...,q }) is a machine of the classM _F then there exist machinesM _i such thatM _i(1,c)=M (q _i,c) andQ _i={0, 1, 2, ..., +1} (i=1, 2, ..., ).And thus, if the way in which to an initial function of content of memorycC a machine assigns a final onecC is regarded as the only essential property of the machine then we can deal with the machines of the formM ={0, 1, 2, ..., }, and processes (t) (wheret=1,c,cC) only.Such approach can simplify the problem of defining particular machines of the classM _F , composing and simplifying them.Allatum est die 19 Januarii 1970     

A monistic interpretation of Wundt's psychology

Summary It is argued that the pivot of Wundt's psychological system can be found in the concept of the mind (Seele) as the dynamic connection (Zusammenhang) of the mental processes.This concept is shown to provide the conceptual basis of the entire Wundtian system. It can be found under various labels depending on the angle from which it is approached. From this point of view the distinctions between apperception and association, psychic and physical causality, and immediate and mediate experience are examined. Against their traditional dualistic interpretation it is maintained that these distinctions should receive a monistic interpretation.This paper is an abbreviated and slightly reworked version of the fourth chapter, Wundt's voluntarism, of my Psychology as self-knowledge, Assen: Van Gorcum & Co. 1979     

Once More into the Breach of Self-Ownership: Reply to Narveson and Brenkert

In reply to Narveson, I distinguish his no-proviso argument from his liberty argument, and I show that both fail. I also argue that interference lacks the strategic status he assigns to it, because it cannot be appropriately distinguished, conceptually and morally, from prevention; that natural resources do enjoy the importance he denies they have; that laissez-faire economies lack the superiority he attributes to them; that ownership can indeed be a reflexive relation; that anti-paternalism does not entail libertarianism; and that he misrepresents the doctrines of a number of philosophers, including John Locke, Ronald Dworkin, and myself. In reply to Brenkert, I show that he seriously misconstrues my view of the nature of freedom, and of its relationship to self-ownership. I then refute his criticisms of my treatment of the contrasts between self-ownership, on the one hand, and autonomy and non-slavery, on the other. I also show that his attempt to exorcize the demon of self-ownership is multiply flawed.     

Construction of monadic three-valued Łukasiewicz algebras

The notion of monadic three-valued ukasiewicz algebras was introduced by L. Monteiro ([12], [14]) as a generalization of monadic Boolean algebras. A. Monteiro ([9], [10]) and later L. Monteiro and L. Gonzalez Coppola [17] obtained a method for the construction of a three-valued ukasiewicz algebra from a monadic Boolea algebra. In this note we give the construction of a monadic three-valued ukasiewicz algebra from a Boolean algebra B where we have defined two quantification operations and ^* such that ^*x=^*x (where ^*x=-^*-x). In this case we shall say that and ^* commutes. If B is finite and is an existential quantifier over B, we shall show how to obtain all the existential quantifiers ^* which commute with .Taking into account R. Mayet [3] we also construct a monadic three-valued ukasiewicz algebra from a monadic Boolean algebra B and a monadic ideal I of B. The most essential results of the present paper will be submitted to the XXXIX Annual Meeting of the Unión Matemática Argentina (October 1989, Rosario, Argentina).     

Die Entwicklung der Diskussion um die formale Logik in der Sowjetunion

Ohne ZusammenfassungDie Literatur zur Logik in der Sowjetunion ist sehr bescheiden. Nebst einigen Kapiteln in grösseren Werken sind es folgende Schriften: Bochénski, I. M., Soviet Logic,SST, 1, 29–38. — Dahm, H., Renaissance der formalen Logik,Ost-Probleme, 1957,8, 254–267. — Philipov, A.,Logic and Dialectic in the Soviet Union, New York 1952, XI+89 pp. — Winkelmann, A., Die Stellung der formalen Logik im Sowjet-system,Scholastik, 1956,1, 85–89.     

On the relation provable equivalence and on partitions in effectively inseparable sets

We generalize a well-knownSmullyan's result, by showing that any two sets of the kindC _a = {x/ xa} andC _b = {x/ xb} are effectively inseparable (if I b). Then we investigate logical and recursive consequences of this fact (see Introduction).     

Every Dogma has its day

This paper is a reexamination of Two Dogmas in the light of Quine's ongoing debate with Carnap over analyticity. It shows, first, that analytic is a technical term within Carnap's epistemology. As such it is intelligible, and Carnap's position can meet Quine's objections. Second, it shows that the core of Quine's objection is that he (Quine) has an alternative epistemology to advance, one which appears to make no room for analyticity. Finally, the paper shows that Quine's alternative epistemology is itself open to very serious objections. Quine is not thereby refuted, but neither can Carnap's analyticity be dismissed as dogma.     

Literal meaning, conventional meaning and first meaning

Literal meaning is often identified with conventional meaning. In A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs Donald Davidson argues (1) that literal meaning is distinct from conventional meaning, and (2) that literal meaning is identical to what he calls first meaning. In this paper it is argued that Davidson has established (1) but not (2), that he has succeeded in showing that there is a distinction between literal meaning and conventional meaning but has failed to see that literal meaning and first meaning are also distinct. This failure is somewhat surprising, since it is through a consideration of Davidson's notion of radical interpretation that the distinction between literal meaning and first meaning becomes apparent.I am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for its financial support, and to Mark Mercer, Tom Patton and Gary Wedeking for their helpful comments. I would also like to thank David Checkland, who discussed A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs with me at length some years ago.     

A notorious affair called exportation

In Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes, Quine held (a) that the rule of exportation is always admissible, and (b) that there is a significant distinction between a believes-true (Ex)Fx and (Ex) a believes-true F of x. An argument of Hintikka's, also urged by Sleigh, persuaded him that these two intuitions are incompatible; and he consequently repudiated the rule of exportation. Hintikka and Kaplan propose to restrict exportation and quantifying in to favoured contexts — Hintikka to contexts where the believer knows who or what the person or thing in question is; Kaplan to contexts where the believer possesses a vivid name of the person or thing in question. The bulk of this paper is taken up with criticisms of these proposals. Its ultimate purpose, however, is to motivate an alternative approach, which imposes no restrictions on exportation or quantifying in, but repudiates Quine's other intuition: this is the approach taken in my A Logical Form for the Propositional Attitudes.This paper is based on my doctoral dissertation (Rockefeller University, 1977). I wish to thank Susan Haack for her help in turning a draft into the present version.