A modal view of the semantics of theoretical sentences

In this paper, a new account of empirical claims in structuralism is developed. Its novelty derives from the use that is made of the linguistic approach to scientific theories despite the presumed incompatibility of structuralism with that approach. It is shown how the linguistic approach can be applied to the framework of structuralism if the semantic foundations of that approach are refined to do justice to the doctrine of indirect interpretation of theoretical terms. This doctrine goes back to Carnap but has been advanced until the present day without a proper semantic explanation.     

Perfect validity,entailment and paraconsistency

This paper treats entailment as a subrelation of classical consequence and deducibility. Working with a Gentzen set-sequent system, we define an entailment as a substitution instance of a valid sequent all of whose premisses and conclusions are necessary for its classical validity. We also define a sequent Proof as one in which there are no applications of cut or dilution. The main result is that the entailments are exactly the Provable sequents. There are several important corollaries. Every unsatisfiable set is Provably inconsistent. Every logical consequence of a satisfiable set is Provable therefrom. Thus our system is adequate for ordinary mathematical practice. Moreover, transitivity of Proof fails upon accumulation of Proofs only when the newly combined premisses are inconsistent anyway, or the conclusion is a logical truth. In either case Proofs that show this can be effectively determined from the Proofs given. Thus transitivity fails where it least matters — arguably, where it ought to fail! We show also that entailments hold by virtue of logical form insufficient either to render the premisses inconsistent or to render the conclusion logically true. The Lewis paradoxes are not Provable. Our system is distinct from Anderson and Belnap's system of first degree entailments, and Johansson's minimal logic. Although the Curry set paradox is still Provable within naive set theory, our system offers the prospect of a more sensitive paraconsistent reconstruction of mathematics. It may also find applications within the logic of knowledge and belief.     

Some theorems on structural entailment relations

The classesMatr( \( \subseteq \) ) of all matrices (models) for structural finitistic entailments \( \subseteq \) are investigated. The purpose of the paper is to prove three theorems: Theorem I.7, being the counterpart of the main theorem from Czelakowski [3], and Theorems II.2 and III.2 being the entailment counterparts of Bloom's results [1]. Theorem I.7 states that if a classK of matrices is adequate for \( \subseteq \) , thenMatr( \( \subseteq \) ) is the least class of matrices containingK and closed under the formation of ultraproducts, submatrices, strict homomorphisms and strict homomorphic pre-images. Theorem II.2 in Section II gives sufficient and necessary conditions for a structural entailment to be finitistic. Section III contains theorems which characterize finitely based entailments.     

On defining necessity in terms of entailment

In their book Entailment, Anderson and Belnap investigate the consequences of defining Lp (it is necessary that p) in system E as (pp)p. Since not all theorems are equivalent in E, this raises the question of whether there are reasonable alternative definitions of necessity in E. In this paper, it is shown that a definition of necessity in E satisfies the conditions { _E Lpp, _EL(pq)(LpLq), _E pLp} if and only if its has the form C ₁.C₂ .... C_np, where each C _iis equivalent in E to either pp or ((pp)p)p.     

Intention-sensitive semantics

A number of authors have argued that the fact that certain indexicals depend for their reference-determination on the speaker’s referential intentions demonstrates the inadequacy of associating such expressions with functions from contexts to referents (characters). By distinguishing between different uses to which the notion of context is put in these argument, I show that this line of argument fails. In the course of doing so, I develop a way of incorporating the role played by intentions into a character-based semantics for indexicals and I argue that the framework I prefer is superior to an alternative which has been proposed by others.