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.

A model of Martin-Löf extensional type theory with universes is formalized in Agda, an interactive proof system based on Martin-Löf intensional type theory. This may be understood, we claim, as a solution to the old problem of modeling the full extensional theory in the intensional theory. Types are interpreted as setoids, and the model is therefore a setoid model.We solve the problem of interpreting type universes by utilizing Aczel’s type of iterative sets and show how it can be made into a setoid of small setoids containing the necessary setoid constructions. In addition, we interpret the bracket types of Awodey and Bauer. Further quotient types should be interpretable.

In [17], we introduced an extensional variant of generic realizability [22], where realizers act extensionally on realizers, and showed that this form of realizability provides inner models of $\mathsf {CZF}$ (constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory) and $\mathsf {IZF}$ (intuitionistic Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory), that further validate $\mathsf {AC}_{\mathsf {FT}}$ (the axiom of choice in all finite types). In this paper, we show that extensional generic realizability validates several choice principles for dependent types, all exceeding $\mathsf {AC}_{\mathsf {FT}}$. We then show that adding such choice principles does not change the arithmetic part of either $\mathsf {CZF}$ or $\mathsf {IZF}$.

There seems to be a view that intuitionists not only take the Axiom of Choice (AC) to be true, but also believe it a consequence of their fundamental posits. Widespread or not, this view is largely mistaken. This article offers a brief, yet comprehensive, overview of the status of AC in various intuitionistic and constructivist systems. The survey makes it clear that the Axiom of Choice fails to be a theorem in most contexts and is even outright false in some important contexts. Of the systems surveyed, only intensional type theory renders AC a theorem, but the extent of AC in that theory does not include, for instance, real analysis. Only a small amount of extensionality is required in order for the obvious proof an intuitionist might offer for AC to break down.

For every partial combinatory algebra (pca), we define a hierarchy of extensionality relations using ordinals. We investigate the closure ordinals of pca’s, i.e., the smallest ordinals where these relations become equal. We show that the closure ordinal of Kleene’s first model is ${\omega _1^{\textit {CK}}}$ and that the closure ordinal of Kleene’s second model is $\omega _1$ . We calculate the exact complexities of the extensionality relations in Kleene’s first model, showing that they exhaust the hyperarithmetical hierarchy. We also discuss embeddings of pca’s.

Consider one of several things. Is the one thing necessarily one of the several? This key question in the modal logic of plurals is clarified. Some defenses of an affirmative answer are developed and compared. Various remarks are made about the broader philosophical significance of the question.

An elementary theory of concatenation, QT+, is introduced and used to establish mutual interpretability of Robinson arithmetic, Minimal Predicative Set Theory, quantifier-free part of Kirby’s finitary set theory, and Adjunctive Set Theory, with or without extensionality. The most basic arithmetic and simplest set theory thus turn out to be variants of string theory.