I apply truthmaker semantics to the logic of conditional imperatives.

All the known non-self-referential paradoxes share a reference pattern of Yablo’s paradox in that they all necessarily contain infinitely many sentences, each of which refers to infinitely many sentences. This raises a question: Does the reference pattern of Yablo’s paradox underlie all non-self-referential paradoxes, just as the reference pattern of the liar paradox underlies all finite paradoxes? In this regard, Rabern et al. [J Philos Logic 42(5): 727–765, 2013] prove that every dangerous acyclic digraph contains infinitely many points with an infinite out-degree. Building upon their work, this paper extends Rabern et al.’s result to the first-order arithmetic language with a primitive truth predicate, proving that all reference digraphs for non-self-referential paradoxes contain infinitely many sentences of infinite out-degree (called “social sentences”). We then strengthen this result in two respects. First, among these social sentences, infinitely many appear in one ray. Second, among these social sentences, infinitely many have infinitely many out-neighbors, none of which will eventually get to a sink. These observations provide helpful information towards the following conjecture proposed by Beringer and Schindler [Bull. of Symb. Logic 23(4): 442–492, 2017]: every dangerous acyclic digraph contains the Yablo digraph as a finitary minor.

This paper proves normalisation theorems for intuitionist and classical negative free logic, without and with the operator for definite descriptions. Rules specific to free logic give rise to new kinds of maximal formulas additional to those familiar from standard intuitionist and classical logic. When is added it must be ensured that reduction procedures involving replacements of parameters by terms do not introduce new maximal formulas of higher degree than the ones removed. The problem is solved by a rule that permits restricting these terms in the rules for $\forall $, $\exists $ and to parameters or constants. A restricted subformula property for deductions in systems without is considered. It is improved upon by an alternative formalisation of free logic building on an idea of Jaśkowski’s. In the classical system the rules for require treatment known from normalisation for classical logic with $\lor $ or $\exists $. The philosophical significance of the results is also indicated.

Anselm described god as “something than which nothing greater can be thought” [1, p. 93], and Descartes viewed him as “a supreme being” [7, p. 122]. I first capture those characterizations formally in a simple language for monadic predicate logic. Next, I construct a model class inspired by Stoic and medieval doctrines of grades of being [8, 20]. Third, I prove the models sufficient for recovering, as internal mathematics, the famous ontological argument of Anselm, and show that argument to be, on this formalization, valid. Fourth, I extend the models to incorporate a modality fit for proving that any item than which necessarily no greater can be thought is also necessarily real. Lastly, with the present approach, I blunt the sharp edges of notable objections to ontological arguments by Gaunilo and by Grant. A trigger warning: every page of this writing flouts the old saw “Existence is not a predicate” and flagrantly.

This paper proposes and partially defends a novel philosophy of arithmetic—finitary upper logicism. According to it, the natural numbers are finite cardinalities—conceived of as properties of properties—and arithmetic is nothing but higher-order modal logic. Finitary upper logicism is furthermore essentially committed to the logicality of finitary plenitude, the principle according to which every finite cardinality could have been instantiated. Among other things, it is proved in the paper that second-order Peano arithmetic is interpretable, on the basis of the finite cardinalities’ conception of the natural numbers, in a weak modal type theory consisting of the modal logic $\mathsf {K}$, negative free quantified logic, a contingentist-friendly comprehension principle, and finitary plenitude. By replacing finitary plenitude for the axiom of infinity this result constitutes a significant improvement on Russell and Whitehead’s interpretation of second-order Peano arithmetic, itself based on the finite cardinalities’ conception of the natural numbers.

The continuum has been one of the most controversial topics in mathematics since the time of the Greeks. Some mathematicians, such as Euclid and Cantor, held the position that a line is composed of points, while others, like Aristotle, Weyl, and Brouwer, argued that a line is not composed of points but rather a matrix of a continued insertion of points. In spite of this disagreement on the structure of the continuum, they did distinguish the temporal line from the spatial line. In this paper, we argue that there is indeed a difference between the intuition of the spatial continuum and the intuition of the temporal continuum. The main primary aspect of the temporal continuum, in contrast with the spatial continuum, is the notion of orientation.

The continuum has usually been mathematically modeled by Cauchy sequences and the Dedekind cuts. While in the first model, each point can be approximated by rational numbers, in the second one, that is not possible constructively. We argue that points on the temporal continuum cannot be approximated by rationals as a temporal point is a flow that sinks to the past. In our model, the continuum is a collection of constructive Dedekind cuts, and we define two topologies for temporal continuum: 1. oriented topology and 2. the ordinary topology. We prove that every total function from the oriented topological space to the ordinary one is continuous.

Consider a variant of the usual story about the iterative conception of sets. As usual, at every stage, you find all the (bland) sets of objects which you found earlier. But you also find the result of tapping any earlier-found object with any magic wand (from a given stock of magic wands).

By varying the number and behaviour of the wands, we can flesh out this idea in many different ways. This paper's main Theorem is that any loosely constructive way of fleshing out this idea is synonymous with a ZF-like theory.

This Theorem has rich applications; it realizes John Conway's (1976) Mathematicians' Liberation Movement; and it connects with a lovely idea due to Alonzo Church (1974).

We investigate whether ordinary quantification over objects is an extensional phenomenon, or rather creates non-extensional contexts; each claim having been propounded by prominent philosophers. It turns out that the question only makes sense relative to a background theory of syntax and semantics (here called a grammar) that goes well beyond the inductive definition of formulas and the recursive definition of satisfaction. Two schemas for building quantificational grammars are developed, one that invariably constructs extensional grammars (in which quantification, in particular, thus behaves extensionally) and another that only generates non-extensional grammars (and in which quantification is responsible for the failure of extensionality). We then ask whether there are reasons to favor one of these grammar schemas over the other, and examine an argument according to which the proper formalization of deictic utterances requires adoption of non-extensional grammars.

Due to Gödel’s incompleteness results, the categoricity of a sufficiently rich mathematical theory and the semantic completeness of its underlying logic are two mutually exclusive ideals. For first- and second-order logics we obtain one of them with the cost of losing the other. In addition, in both these logics the rules of deduction for their quantifiers are non-categorical. In this paper I examine two recent arguments—Warren [43] and Murzi and Topey [30]—for the idea that the natural deduction rules for the first-order universal quantifier are categorical, i.e., they uniquely determine its semantic intended meaning. Both of them make use of McGee’s open-endedness requirement and the second one uses in addition Garson’s [19] local models for defining the validity of these rules. I argue that the success of both these arguments is relative to their semantic or infinitary assumptions, which could be easily discharged if the introduction rule for the universal quantifier is taken to be an infinitary rule, i.e., non-compact. Consequently, I reconsider the use of the $\omega $-rule and I show that the addition of the $\omega $-rule to the standard formalizations of first-order logic is categorical. In addition, I argue that the open-endedness requirement does not make the first-order Peano Arithmetic categorical and I advance an argument for its categoricity based on the inferential conservativity requirement.

On the basis of Poincaré and Weyl’s view of predicativity as invariance, we develop an extensive framework for predicative, type-free first-order set theory in which $\Gamma _0$ and much bigger ordinals can be defined as von Neumann ordinals. This refutes the accepted view of $\Gamma _0$ as the “limit of predicativity”.

This paper assembles a unifying framework encompassing a wide variety of mathematical instruments used to compare different theories. The main theme will be the idea that theory comparison techniques are most easily grasped and organized through the lens of category theory. The paper develops a table of different equivalence relations between theories and then answers many of the questions about how those equivalence relations are themselves related to each other. We show that Morita equivalence fits into this framework and provide answers to questions left open in Barrett and Halvorson [4]. We conclude by setting up a diagram of known relationships and leave open some questions for future work.

Purity is known as an ideal of proof that restricts a proof to notions belonging to the ‘content’ of the theorem. In this paper, our main interest is to develop a conception of purity for formal (natural deduction) proofs. We develop two new notions of purity: one based on an ontological notion of the content of a theorem, and one based on the notions of surrogate ontological content and structural content. From there, we characterize which (classical) first-order natural deduction proofs of a mathematical theorem are pure. Formal proofs that refer to the ontological content of a theorem will be called ‘fully ontologically pure’. Formal proofs that refer to a surrogate ontological content of a theorem will be called ‘secondarily ontologically pure’, because they preserve the structural content of a theorem. We will use interpretations between theories to develop a proof-theoretic criterion that guarantees secondary ontological purity for formal proofs.

Kolmogorov conditionalization is a strategy for updating credences based on propositions that have initial probability 0. I explore the connection between Kolmogorov conditionalization and Dutch books. Previous discussions of the connection rely crucially upon a factivity assumption: they assume that the agent updates credences based on true propositions. The factivity assumption discounts cases of misplaced certainty, i.e., cases where the agent invests credence 1 in a falsehood. Yet misplaced certainty arises routinely in scientific and philosophical applications of Bayesian decision theory. I prove a non-factive Dutch book theorem and converse Dutch book theorem for Kolmogorov conditionalization. The theorems do not rely upon the factivity assumption, so they establish that Kolmogorov conditionalization has unique pragmatic virtues that persist even in cases of misplaced certainty.

Reasoning with quantifier expressions in natural language combines logical and arithmetical features, transcending strict divides between qualitative and quantitative. Our topic is this cooperation of styles as it occurs in common linguistic usage and its extension into the broader practice of natural language plus ‘grassroots mathematics’.

We begin with a brief review of $\mathsf {FO}(\#)$, first-order logic with counting operators and cardinality comparisons. This system is known to be of very high complexity, and drowns out finer aspects of the combination of logic and counting. We therefore move to a small fragment that can represent numerical syllogisms and basic reasoning about comparative size: monadic first-order logic with counting, $\mathsf {MFO}(\#)$. We provide normal forms that allow for axiomatization, determine which arithmetical notions can be defined on finite and on infinite models, and conversely, we discuss which logical notions can be defined out of purely arithmetical ones, and what sort of (non-)classical logics can be induced.

Next, we investigate a series of strengthenings of $\mathsf {MFO}(\#)$, again using normal form methods. The monadic second-order version is close, in a precise sense, to additive Presburger Arithmetic, while versions with the natural device of tuple counting take us to Diophantine equations, making the logic undecidable. We also define a system $\mathsf {ML}(\#)$ that combines basic modal logic over binary accessibility relations with counting, needed to formulate ubiquitous reasoning patterns such as the Pigeonhole Principle. We prove decidability of $\mathsf {ML}(\#)$, and provide a new kind of bisimulation matching the expressive power of the language.

As a complement to the fragment approach pursued here, we also discuss two other ways of lowering the complexity of $\mathsf {FO}(\#)$ by changing the semantics of counting in natural ways. A first approach replaces cardinalities by abstract but well-motivated values of ‘mass’ or other mereological aggregating notions. A second approach keeps the cardinalities but generalizes the meaning of counting to work in models that allow dependencies between variables.

Finally, we return to our starting point in natural language, confronting the architecture of our formal systems with linguistic quantifier vocabulary and syntax, as well as with natural reasoning modules such as the monotonicity calculus. In addition to these encounters with formal semantics, we discuss the role of counting in semantic evaluation procedures for quantifier expressions and determine, for instance, which binary quantifiers are computable by finite ‘semantic automata’. We conclude with some general thoughts on yet further entanglements of logic and counting in formal systems, on rethinking the qualitative/quantitative divide, and on connecting our analysis to empirical findings in cognitive science.

We generalize the notion of consequence relation standard in abstract treatments of logic to accommodate intuitions of relevance. The guiding idea follows the use criterion, according to which in order for some premises to have some conclusion(s) as consequence(s), the premises must each be used in some way to obtain the conclusion(s). This relevance intuition turns out to require not just a failure of monotonicity, but also a move to considering consequence relations as obtaining between multisets. We motivate and state basic definitions of relevant consequence relations, both in single conclusion (asymmetric) and multiple conclusion (symmetric) settings, as well as derivations and theories, guided by the use intuitions, and prove a number of results indicating that the definitions capture the desired results (at least in many cases).

The present note was prompted by Weber’s approach to proving Cantor’s theorem, i.e., the claim that the cardinality of the power set of a set is always greater than that of the set itself. While I do not contest that his proof succeeds, my point is that he neglects the possibility that by similar methods it can be shown also that no non-empty set satisfies Cantor’s theorem. In this paper unrestricted abstraction based on a cut free Gentzen type sequential calculus will be employed to prove both results. In view of the connection between Priest’s three-valued logic of paradox and cut free Gentzen calculi this, a fortiori, has an impact on any paraconsistent set theory built on Priest’s logic of paradox.

I discuss problems with Martin-Löf’s distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments in constructive type theory and propose a revision of his views. I maintain that a judgment is analytic when its correctness follows exclusively from the evaluation of the expressions occurring in it. I argue that Martin-Löf’s claim that all judgments of the forms $a : A$ and $a = b : A$ are analytic is unfounded. As I shall show, when A evaluates to a dependent function type $(x : B) \to C$, all judgments of these forms fail to be analytic and therefore end up as synthetic. Going beyond the scope of Martin-Löf’s original distinction, I also argue that all hypothetical judgments are synthetic and show how the analytic–synthetic distinction reworked here is capable of accommodating judgments of the forms $A \> \mathsf {type}$ and $A = B \> \mathsf {type}$ as well. Finally, I consider and reject an alternative account of analyticity as decidability and assess Martin-Löf’s position on the analytic grounding of synthetic judgments.

We explain and explore class-theoretic potentialism—the view that one can always individuate more classes over a set-theoretic universe. We examine some motivations for class-theoretic potentialism, before proving some results concerning the relevant potentialist systems (in particular exhibiting failures of the $\mathsf {.2}$ and $\mathsf {.3}$ axioms). We then discuss the significance of these results for the different kinds of class-theoretic potentialists.

We present recent results on the model companions of set theory, placing them in the context of a current debate in the philosophy of mathematics. We start by describing the dependence of the notion of model companionship on the signature, and then we analyze this dependence in the specific case of set theory. We argue that the most natural model companions of set theory describe (as the signature in which we axiomatize set theory varies) theories of $H_{\kappa ^+}$, as $\kappa $ ranges among the infinite cardinals. We also single out $2^{\aleph _0}=\aleph _2$ as the unique solution of the continuum problem which can (and does) belong to some model companion of set theory (enriched with large cardinal axioms). While doing so we bring to light that set theory enriched by large cardinal axioms in the range of supercompactness has as its model companion (with respect to its first order axiomatization in certain natural signatures) the theory of $H_{\aleph _2}$ as given by a strong form of Woodin’s axiom $(*)$ (which holds assuming $\mathsf {MM}^{++}$). Finally this model-theoretic approach to set-theoretic validities is explained and justified in terms of a form of maximality inspired by Hilbert’s axiom of completeness.

Free choice sequences play a key role in the intuitionistic theory of the continuum and especially in the theorems of intuitionistic analysis that conflict with classical analysis, leading many classical mathematicians to reject the concept of a free choice sequence. By treating free choice sequences as potentially infinite objects, however, they can be comfortably situated alongside classical analysis, allowing a rapprochement of these two mathematical traditions. Building on recent work on the modal analysis of potential infinity, I formulate a modal theory of the free choice sequences known as lawless sequences. Intrinsically well-motivated axioms for lawless sequences are added to a background theory of classical second-order arithmetic, leading to a theory I call $MC_{LS}$. This theory interprets the standard intuitionistic theory of lawless sequences and is conservative over the classical background theory.