Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T05:02:00.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COORDINATE-FREE LOGIC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2016

JOOP LEO
JOOP LEO*
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
*
*UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, THE NETHERLANDS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new logic is presented without predicates—except equality. Yet its expressive power is the same as that of predicate logic, and relations can faithfully be represented in it. In this logic we also develop an alternative for set theory. There is a need for such a new approach, since we do not live in a world of sets and predicates, but rather in a world of things with relations between them.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 522 - 555
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2016 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aczel, P. (1988). Non-well-founded Sets. Stanford: CLSI.Google Scholar
Barendregt, H. (1984). The Lambda Calculus: Its Syntax and Semantics (revised edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Barker, R. (1992). CASE*Method: Entity Relationship Modelling. New York: Addison-Wesley. Originally published in 1989.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Etchemendy, J. (1987) The Liar: An Essay on Truth and Circularity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benacerraf, P. (1965). What numbers could not be. Philosophical Review, 74, 47–73.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1989). The problem of de re modality. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H., editors. Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 197–272.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2000). Neutral relations. The Philosophical Review, 109, 1–33.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, A., Bar-Hillel, Y., & Levy, A. (1973). Foundations of Set Theory (second edition). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gaskin, R. & Hill, D. (2012). On neutral relations. dialectica, 66.1, 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunen, K. (2011). Set Theory. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Kuper, J. (1993). An axiomatic theory for partial functions. Information and Computation, 107.1, 104–150.Google Scholar
Landini, G. (2003). Russell’s substitutional theory. In Griffin, N., editor. The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 241–285.Google Scholar
Leo, J. (2008). Modeling relations. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37, 353–385.Google Scholar
Leo, J. (2010a). Modeling occurrences of objects in relations. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 3.1, 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, J. (2010b). The Logical Structure of Relations. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Leo, J. (2014). Thinking in a coordinate-free way about relations. dialectica, 68.2, 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacBride, F. (2007). Neutral relations revisited. dialectica, 61, 25–56.Google Scholar
MacBride, F. (2013). How involved do you want to be in a non-symmetric relationship? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 1–16. Published online before print May 13, 2013.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J. (1925). Eine Axiomatisierung der Mengenlehre. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 154, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, A. & Smiley, T. (2013) Plural Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orilia, F. (2011). Relational order and onto-thematic roles. Metaphysica, 12.1, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1973). Substitutional theory of classes and relations. In Lackey, D., editor. Essays in Analysis. London: George Allen & Unwin, pp. 165–189. Originally published in 1906.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1961). More on the axiom of extensionality. In Bar-Hillel, Y., et al. . editor. Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, pp. 115–131.Google Scholar
Tarski, A., Mostowski, A., & Robinson, R. (1953). Undecidable Theories. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Thalheim, B. (2000). Entity–Relationship Modeling: Foundations of Database Technology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaught, R. (1985). Set Theory: An Introduction. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2006). Categories of theories and interpretations. In Enayat, A., Kalantari, I., and Moniri, M., editors. Logic in Tehran, Vol. 26. Lecture Notes in Logic. La Jolla: Association for Symbolic Logic, pp. 284–341.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2009) “Why the theory R is special. In Tennant, N., editor. Foundational Adventures, Essays in Honor of Harvey M. Friedman, Vol. 22. London: College Publications, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Wieland, J. W. (2010). Anti-positionalism’s regress. Axiomathes, 20.4, 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar