The (Non-)classicality of (Non-)classical Mathematics

Article
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Graham Priest has recently argued that the distinctive trait of classical mathematics is that the conditional of its underlying logic—that is, classical logic—is extensional. In this article, I aim to present an alternate explanation of the specificity of classical mathematics (and actually for L-mathematics, for a significative amount of instances of 'L').

Method

I examine Priest's argument for his claim and show its shortcomings. Then I deploy a model-theoretic presentation of logics that allows comparing them, and the mathematics based on them, more fine-grainedly.

Results

Such a model-theoretic presentation of logics suggests that the specific character of classical logic consists in the structure that it confers to its truth values and in the structure of the evaluation indices of its formulas, and that this trait is useful to explain the specific character of the logics and the mathematics based on them.

Conclusion

The extensionality of the conditional in classical logic is a by-product of other structural features of a logic, which are more likely to be what gives a kind of mathematics based on it its specific character.

Keywords

Conditional Extensionality Classical mathematics Non-classical mathematics LP K3 Satisfiability conditions 

References

  1. Beall, J. C. (2010). On truth, abnormal worlds, and necessity. In M. Peliš & V. Punčochář (Eds.), Logica Yearbook 2009 (pp. 17–33). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Beall, J. C., Brady, R., Dunn, J. Michael., Hazen, A. P., Mares, E., Meyer, R. K., et al. (2012). On the ternary relation and conditionality. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(3), 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, J. L. (1998). A primer of infinitesimal analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hjortland, O. (2013). Logical pluralism, meaning variance, and verbal disputes. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91(2), 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Meyer, R. (1976). Relevant arithmetic. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 5(4), 133–135.Google Scholar
  6. Paoli, F. (2003). Quine and Slater on paraconsistency and deviance. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32, 531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Priest, G. (2006). In contradiction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Priest, G. (2008). An introduction to non-classical logic. From if to is (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Priest, G. (forthcoming). What is the specificity of classical mathematics?Google Scholar
  10. Restall, G. (2002). Carnap’s tolerance, meaning, and logical pluralism. The Journal of Philosophy, 99(8), 426–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tye, M. (1994). Sorites paradoxes and the semantics of vagueness. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wansing, H., & Shramko, Y. (2008). Suszko’s thesis, inferential many-valuedness and the notion of logical system. Studia Logica, 88(3), 405–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICPR 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Philosophical ResearchUNAMMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations