Pitts' Quantifiers Are Not Topological Quantification

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 39 (4):531-544 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We show that Pitts' modeling of propositional quantification in intuitionistic logic (as the appropriate interpolants) does not coincide with the topological interpretation. This contrasts with the case of the monadic language and the interpretation over sufficiently regular topological spaces. We also point to the difference between the topological interpretation over sufficiently regular spaces and the interpretation of propositional quantifiers in Kripke models

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Topological completeness for higher-order logic.S. Awodey & C. Butz - 2000 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (3):1168-1182.
Quantifiers in ontology.Charles F. Kielkopf - 1977 - Studia Logica 36 (4):301-307.
Reasoning with quantifiers.Bart Geurts - 2003 - Cognition 86 (3):223--251.
Quantification in English is Inherently Sortal.Edward L. Keenan - 1999 - History and Philosophy of Logic 20 (3-4):251-265.
A remark on collective quantification.Juha Kontinen & Jakub Szymanik - 2008 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17 (2):131-140.
Plural quantification.Ø Linnebo - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Generalized Quantifiers, and Beyond.Hanoch Ben-Yami - 2009 - Logique Et Analyse (208):309-326.
Quantification.Anna Szabolcsi - 2010 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Certain Verbs Are Syntactically Explicit Quantifiers.Anna Szabolcsi - 2011 - The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6:5.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
20 (#720,454)

6 months
3 (#880,460)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile