Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:57:56.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MODELING OCCURRENCES OF OBJECTS IN RELATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2010

JOOP LEO
JOOP LEO*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, HEIDELBERGLAAN 8, 3584 CS UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDS. E-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study the logical structure of ‘real’ relations, and in particular the notion of occurrences of objects in a state. We start with formulating a number of principles for occurrences and defining corresponding mathematical models. These models are analyzed to get more insight in the formal properties of occurrences. In particular, we prove uniqueness results that tell us more about the possible logical structures relations might have.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 145 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2010

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.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armstrong, D. (1997). A World of States of Affairs. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (2000). Neutral relations. The Philosophical Review, 109, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (1989). The Problem of De Re Modality. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H., editors. Themes From Kaplan. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 197–272.Google Scholar
Jech, T. (2006). Set Theory (third edition). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Janssen, M., & Visser, A. (2004). Some words on word. La Nuova Critica, 43–44, 71–95.Google Scholar
Kanamori, A. (2005). The Highter Infinite. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Kracht, M. (2007). Compositionality: The very idea. Research on Language and Computation, 5.3, 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, J. (2008a). Modeling relations. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37, 353–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, J. (2008b). The identitity of argument-places. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1.3, 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mates, B. (1972). Elementary Logic. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1998). Categories for the Working Mathematician (second edition). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1956). The philosophy of logical atomism. In Marsh, R. C., editor. Logic and Knowledge, Essays 1901-1950. London: George Allen & Unwin, pp. 175–281. (Originally published in 1918).Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1984). Theory of knowledge. In Eames, E. R., editor. Theory of Knowledge, The 1913 Manuscript. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Wetzel, L. (1993). What are occurrences of expressions? Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22.2, 215–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar