Results

**1 - 5**of**5**### Logic and Metaphysics ∗

"... In this article, we canvass a few of the interesting topics that philosophers can pursue as part of the simultaneous study of logic and metaphysics. To keep the discussion to a manageable length, we limit our survey to deductive, as opposed to inductive, logic. Though most of this article ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

In this article, we canvass a few of the interesting topics that philosophers can pursue as part of the simultaneous study of logic and metaphysics. To keep the discussion to a manageable length, we limit our survey to deductive, as opposed to inductive, logic. Though most of this article

### Recent Developments in Computing and Philosophy

"... Because the label "computing and philosophy " can seem like an ad hoc attempt to tie computing to philosophy, it is important to explain why it is not, what it studies (or does) and how it differs from research in, say, "computing and history, " or "computing and biology". The American Association f ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

Because the label "computing and philosophy " can seem like an ad hoc attempt to tie computing to philosophy, it is important to explain why it is not, what it studies (or does) and how it differs from research in, say, "computing and history, " or "computing and biology". The American Association for History and Computing is "dedicated to the reasonable and productive marriage of history and computer technology for teaching, researching and representing history through scholarship and public history "

### and

"... Though Frege was interested primarily in reducing mathematics to logic, he succeeded in reducing an important part of logic to mathematics by defining relations in terms of functions. By contrast, Whitehead & Russell reduced an important part of mathematics to logic by defining functions in terms of ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

Though Frege was interested primarily in reducing mathematics to logic, he succeeded in reducing an important part of logic to mathematics by defining relations in terms of functions. By contrast, Whitehead & Russell reduced an important part of mathematics to logic by defining functions in terms of relations (using the definite description operator). We argue that there is a reason to prefer Whitehead & Russell’s reduction of functions to relations over Frege’s reduction of relations to functions. There is an interesting system having a logic that can be properly characterized in relational but not in functional type theory. This shows that relational type theory is more general than functional type theory. The simplification offered by Church in his functional type theory is an over-simplification: one can’t assimilate predication to functional application. ∗ This paper is forthcoming in the Journal of Logic and Computation. The authors would like to thank Uri Nodelman for his observations on the first draft of this paper. We’d also like to thank Bernard Linsky for observations on the second draft, which led us to reconceptualize the significance of our results within a more historical context. We’d also like to acknowledge one of the referees of this journal, whose comments led us to clarify and better document the claims in the paper. Paul Oppenheimer and Edward N. Zalta 2 1.

### Tipi: A TPTP-based theory development environment emphasizing proof dependencies

"... In some theory development tasks, a problem is satisfactorily solved once it is shown that a theorem (conjecture) is derivable from the background theory (premises). Depending on one’s motivations, the details of the derivation of the conjecture from the premises may or may not be important. In some ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

In some theory development tasks, a problem is satisfactorily solved once it is shown that a theorem (conjecture) is derivable from the background theory (premises). Depending on one’s motivations, the details of the derivation of the conjecture from the premises may or may not be important. In some contexts, though, one wants more from theory development than simply derivability of the target theorems from the background theory. One may want to know which premises of the background theory were used in the course of a proof output by an automated theorem prover (when a proof is available), whether they are all, in suitable senses, necessary (and why), whether alternative proofs can be found, and so forth. The problem, then, is to support proof analysis in theory development; the tool described in this paper, Tipi, aims to provide precisely that. 1