Results 1  10
of
21
The Mark2 Theorem Prover
"... ABSTRACT1 @ ?x: ?x = 68 Id @ ?x ["ID"] *)  s "?x";  rri "ID";ex();  p "ABSTRACT1@?x"; (* ABSTRACT2 @ ?x: ?f @ ?a = COMP != ?f @ (ABSTRACT @ ?x) =? ?a ["COMP"] *)  s "?f@?a";  rri "COMP";  right(); right(); r ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
ABSTRACT1 @ ?x: ?x = 68 Id @ ?x ["ID"] *)  s "?x";  rri "ID";ex();  p "ABSTRACT1@?x"; (* ABSTRACT2 @ ?x: ?f @ ?a = COMP != ?f @ (ABSTRACT @ ?x) =? ?a ["COMP"] *)  s "?f@?a";  rri "COMP";  right(); right(); ri "ABSTRACT@?x";  prove "ABSTRACT2@?x"; (* ABSTRACT3 @ ?x: ?a & ?b = RAISE0 =? ((ABSTRACT @ ?x) =? ?a) & (ABSTRACT @ ?x) =? ?b [] *)  s "?a&?b";  right();  ri "ABSTRACT@?x";  up();left();  ri "ABSTRACT@?x";  top();  ri "RAISE0";  prove "ABSTRACT3@?x"; (* ABSTRACT4 @ ?x: ?a = [?a] @ ?x [] *)  s "?a";  ri "BIND@?x"; ex(); 69  p "ABSTRACT4@?x"; (* ABSTRACT@term will (attempt to) express a target term as a function of its parameter "term" *) (* ABSTRACT @ ?x: ?a = (ABSTRACT4 @ ?x) =?? (ABSTRACT3 @ ?x) =?? (ABSTRACT2 @ ?x) =?? (ABSTRACT1 @ ?x) =? ?a ["COMP","ID"] *)  s "?a";  ri "ABSTRACT1@?x";  ari "ABSTRACT2@?x";  ari "ABSTRACT3@?x";  ari "ABSTRACT4@?x";  p "ABSTRACT@?x"; (* REDUCE will reverse the effect of ABSTRACT; it will "evaluate" functions built by ABSTRACT *) (* REDUCE: ?f @ ?x = (ABSTRACT4 @ ?x) !!= ((RL @ REDUCE) *? RAISE0) !!= ((RIGHT @ REDUCE) *? COMP) =?? ID =? ?f @ ?x ["COMP","ID"] *)  dpt "REDUCE";  s "?f@?x";  ri "ID";  ari "(RIGHT@REDUCE)*?COMP";  arri "(RL@REDUCE)*?RAISE0";  arri "ABSTRACT4@?x";  prove "REDUCE"; (* old approach to hypotheses *) (* equational forms of tactics given without proof; the proofs of the tactics involve no actual rewriting *) PIVOT: (?a = ?b)  ?T , ?U = (RIGHT @ LEFT @ EVAL) =? HYP =? (?a = ?b) 70  ((BIND @ ?a) =? ?T) , ?U ["HYP"] REVPIVOT: (?a = ?b)  ?T , ?U = (RIGHT @ LEFT @ EVAL) =? HYP != (?a = ?b)  ((BIND @ ?b) =? ?T) , ?U ["HYP"] We now present examples of the use of thes...
Enriched stratified systems for the foundations of category
"... This is the fourth in a series of intermittent papers on the foundations of category theory stretching back over more than thirtyfive years. The first three were “Settheoretical foundations of category theory ” [1969], “Categorical foundations and foundations of category theory ” [1977], and much ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This is the fourth in a series of intermittent papers on the foundations of category theory stretching back over more than thirtyfive years. The first three were “Settheoretical foundations of category theory ” [1969], “Categorical foundations and foundations of category theory ” [1977], and much more recently, “Typical ambiguity: Trying to have
About the coexistence of classical sets with nonclassical ones: a survey’, Logic and Logical Philosophy, this issue
 Logic and Logical Philosophy 11 (2003
"... Abstract. This is a survey of some possible extensions of ZF to a larger universe, closer to the “naive set theory ” (the universes discussed here concern, roughly speaking: stratified sets, partial sets, positive sets, paradoxical sets and double sets). ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. This is a survey of some possible extensions of ZF to a larger universe, closer to the “naive set theory ” (the universes discussed here concern, roughly speaking: stratified sets, partial sets, positive sets, paradoxical sets and double sets).
THE RUSSELLKAPLAN PARADOX AND OTHER MODAL PARADOXES: A New Solution
, 1999
"... The article considers some paradoxes that have been found in possible worlds semantics, such as the RussellKaplan paradox and a paradox proposed by Forrest and Armstrong. It is proposed that the most serious of the paradoxes can be avoided if we use as the background theory of possible worlds seman ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The article considers some paradoxes that have been found in possible worlds semantics, such as the RussellKaplan paradox and a paradox proposed by Forrest and Armstrong. It is proposed that the most serious of the paradoxes can be avoided if we use as the background theory of possible worlds semantics the set theory NFU or other similar nonstandard set theories instead of ZF.
Quine's NF60 years on
, 1998
"... Sixty years ago in this journal, the distinguished American philosopher W.V. Quine published a novel approach to set theory. The title was New Foundations for Mathematical Logic [6]. The diamond anniversary is being commemorated by a workshop in Cambridge (England) and comes at a time of rapid incre ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Sixty years ago in this journal, the distinguished American philosopher W.V. Quine published a novel approach to set theory. The title was New Foundations for Mathematical Logic [6]. The diamond anniversary is being commemorated by a workshop in Cambridge (England) and comes at a time of rapid increase of interest in the alternatives to the hitherto customary ZermeloFr&quot;ankel set theory, which promises a new lease of life for the axiomatic system now known as `NF'; its creator remains in good health too. Although he is best known to a wider public for his philosophical writings, his most enduring and most concrete legacy for the next fifty years may well turn out to be his most mathematical: he gave us NF. Set theory is the study of sets, which are the simplest of all mathematical entities. Let us illustrate by constrasting sets with groups. Two distinct groups can have the same elements and yet be told apart by the way those elements are related. Sets are distinguished from all other mathematical fauna by the fact that a set is constituted solely by its members: two sets with the same members are the same set. To use a bit of jargon from another age, sets are properties in extension. As a result, all set theories have the axiom of extensionality: (8xy)(x = y! (8z)(z 2 x! z 2 y)): they differ in their views on which properties have extensions. Since set theory first sprang on the scene about a hundred years ago there has been a tendency to attempt to use this simplicity to simplify and illuminate the rest of mathematics by translating (perhaps a better word is implementing) it into set theory. After all, if we can represent all of mathematics as facts about these delightfully simple things, some facts about mathematics might become clear that would otherwise remain obscure. This same simplicity means that set theory is always a good topic on which to try out any new mathematical idea.
Strong Axioms of Infinity in ...
"... This paper discusses a sequence of extensions of NFU , Jensen's improvement of Quine's set theory \New Foundations" (NF ) of [16] ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper discusses a sequence of extensions of NFU , Jensen's improvement of Quine's set theory \New Foundations" (NF ) of [16]
Russell's Paradox Of The Totality Of Propositions
, 2000
"... on this analysis, and although Oksanen quoted Russell's description of the paradox in detail, he did not show how it is explained in NFU after his resolution of the other related modal paradoxes; in fact, it is not at all clear how this might be done in NFU. 1PoM, p. 527. 2See, e.g., Grim ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
on this analysis, and although Oksanen quoted Russell's description of the paradox in detail, he did not show how it is explained in NFU after his resolution of the other related modal paradoxes; in fact, it is not at all clear how this might be done in NFU. 1PoM, p. 527. 2See, e.g., Grim 1991, pp. 92f. 3See, e.g., Grim 1991, p. 119 and Jubien 1988, p. 307. 4See Oksanen 1999. NFU is a modified version of Quine's system NF. It was first described in Jenson 1968 and recently has been extensively developed in Holmes 1999. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 2537. 2000 Taylor & Francis. 26 nino b. cocchiarella One reason why Russell's argument is dicult to reconstruct in NFU is that it is based on the logic of propositions, and implicitly in that regard on a theory of predication rather than a theory of membership. A mo
A Note on Hardy’s Paradox
"... A classical probabilistic explanation for Hardy’s ’measurement after mutual annihilation ’ quantum paradox is demonstrated. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
A classical probabilistic explanation for Hardy’s ’measurement after mutual annihilation ’ quantum paradox is demonstrated.
The usual model construction for NFU preserves information
, 2009
"... The “usual ” model construction for NFU (Quine’s New Foundations with urelements, shown to be consistent by Jensen) starts with a model of the usual set theory with an automorphism that moves a rank (this rank is the domain of the model). “Most ” elements of the resulting model of NFU are urelements ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The “usual ” model construction for NFU (Quine’s New Foundations with urelements, shown to be consistent by Jensen) starts with a model of the usual set theory with an automorphism that moves a rank (this rank is the domain of the model). “Most ” elements of the resulting model of NFU are urelements (it appears that information about their extensions is discarded). The surprising result of this paper is that this information is not discarded at all: the membership relation of the original model (restricted to the domain of the model of NFU) is definable in the language of NFU. A corollary of this is that the urelements of a model of NFU obtained by the “usual ” construction are inhomogeneous: this was the question the author was investigating initially. Other aspects of the mutual interpretability of NFU and a fragment of ZFC are discussed in sufficient detail to place