Studia Logica

, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 251–260

A Propositional Logic with Relative Identity Connective and a Partial Solution to the Paradox of Analysis

Article
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

We construct a a system PLRI which is the classical propositional logic supplied with a ternary construction \({\alpha \equiv_{\gamma} \beta}\) , interpreted as the intensional identity of statements \({\alpha}\) and \({\beta}\) in the context \({\gamma}\) . PLRI is a refinement of Roman Suszko’s sentential calculus with identity (SCI) whose identity connective is a binary one. We provide a Hilbert-style axiomatization of this logic and prove its soundness and completeness with respect to some algebraic models. We also show that PLRI can be used to give a partial solution to the paradox of analysis.

Keywords

relative identity context paradox of analysis hyperintensional logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, C., ‘General intensional logic’, in D. Gabby and F. Guenther (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic vol.2, 1st edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1984, pp. 355–385.Google Scholar
  2. Bealer, G., and U. Monnich, ‘Property theories’, in D. Gabby and F. Guenther (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic vol.10, 2nd edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, pp. 143–248.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom L.S., Suszko R. (1971) ‘Semantics for the sentential calculus with identity’. Studia Logica 28:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom L.S., Suszko R. (1972) ‘Investigations into the sentential calculus with identity’. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 13(3):289–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cresswell M. (1975) ‘Hyperintensional logic’. Studia Logica 34:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox C., Lappin S., Foundations of Intensional Semantics, Blackwell Publishing, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. Ishii, T., Nonclassical logics with identity connective and their algebraic characterization, a dissertation submitted to Japan Advance Institute of Science and Technology, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Suszko R. (1968) ‘Ontology in the Tractatus of L. Wittgenstein’. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 9:7–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Suszko R. (1971) ‘Identity connective an modality’. Studia Logica 27:7–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Suszko, R., ‘Abolition of the Fregean axiom’. in P. Rohit (ed.) Logic Colloquium (Symposium on logic held at Boston, 1972-73), Springer-Verlag, 1975, pp. 169–239.Google Scholar
  11. Thomason R. (1980) ‘A model theory for propositional attitudes’. Linguistics and Philosophy 4:47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wójcicki R. (1984) ‘R. Suszko’s situational semantics’. Studia Logica 43:323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wójcicki R. (1986) ‘Situation semantics for non-Fregean logic’. Journal of Non-Classical Logic 3:33–67Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Logic and CognitionSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouP. R. China
  2. 2.Department of HumanitiesNational University of Defence TechnologyChangshaP. R. China

Personalised recommendations