Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:41:46.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modifications of Quine's ML and inclusive quantification systems1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

George Goe
George Goe*
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a paper that was written some time ago but appeared only recently [1], I indicated that Quine's system of quantification in [2], as well as his inclusive system of [3] can be modified so as to make it possible to prove *119 of [2] by another method than the one discovered by Berry. The reason originally given in [1, p. 136] for preferring the modified systems was wrong. (See [1, p. 158] for correction of previous remark.) But, at the cost of a slight complication of one of the axiom schemata, a considerable simplification of the proof of *119 is achieved in the modified systems, by dispensing with the use of *115 and *117 as intermediaries.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , 26 April 1968 , pp. 39 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Work for the completion of this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation, Grant GS-1425.

References

[1]Goe, George, A reconstruction of formal logic, Notre Dame journal of formal logic, vol. 7 (1966), pp. 129–157, and Corrections to my paper “A reconstruction of formal logic”, ibid. p. 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Quine, W. V., Mathematical logic, revised edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Quine, W. V., Quantification and the empty domain, this Journal, vol. 19 (1954), pp. 177–179.Google Scholar