F. Richman raised the question of whether the following principle of second order arithmetic is valid in intuitionistic higher order arithmetic $\mathbf{HAH}$: $\forall X\lbrack\forall x(x \in X \vee \neg x \in X) \wedge \forall Y(\forall x(x \in Y \vee \neg x \in Y) \rightarrow \forall x(x \in X \rightarrow x \in Y) \vee \forall x \neg(x \in X \wedge x \in Y)) \rightarrow \exists n\forall x(x \in X \rightarrow x = n)\rbrack$, and if not, (...) whether assuming Church's Thesis CT and Markov's Principle MP would help. Blass and Scedrov gave models of $\mathbf{HAH}$ in which this principle, which we call RP, is not valid, but their models do not satisfy either CT or MP. In this paper a realizability topos Lif is constructed in which CT and MP hold, but RP is false. (It is shown, however, that $RP$ is derivable in $\mathbf{HAH} + \mathrm{CT} + \mathrm{MP} + \mathrm{ECT}_0$, so RP holds in the effective topos.) Lif is a generalization of a realizability notion invented by V. Lifschitz. Furthermore, Lif is a subtopos of the effective topos. (shrink)

In this paper, we discuss uniform versions of some axioms of second order arithmetic in the context of higher order arithmetic. We prove that uniform versions of weak weak König's lemma WWKL and Σ01 separation are equivalent to over a suitable base theory of higher order arithmetic, where is the assertion that there exists Φ2 such that Φf1 = 0 if and only if ∃x0 for all f. We also prove that (...) uniform versions of some well-known theorems are equivalent to or the axiom of the existence of the Suslin operator. (shrink)

Kleene's realizability interpretation for first-order arithmetic was shown by Hyland to fit into the internal logic of an elementary topos, the “Effective topos” . In this paper it is shown, that there is an internal realizability definition in , i.e. a syntactical translation of the internal language of into itself of form “n realizes ” , which extends Kleene's definition, and such that for sentences , the equivalence [harr]n is true in . The internal realizability definition depends on (...) finding separated covers for non-separated objects of . However, for the objects arising in higher-order arithmetic, canonical covers are available, which are definable in higher-order arithmetic. These canonical covers yield “covering axioms”. It is shown that these covering axioms, together with uniformity principles and Extended Church's Thesis, axiomatize a formalized extension of Kleene realizability to a constructive system of higher-order arithmetic. The details are worked out for second and third-order arithmetic, but the method can be extended to any order. As an application, it is shown in the final section that a certain completeness property of the category of “modest sets” can be derived in third-order arithmetic from the realizability axioms. (shrink)

We define and investigate constructibility in higher order arithmetics. In particular we get an interpretation ofn-order arithmetic inn-order arithmetic without the scheme of choice such that ∈ and the property “to be a well-ordering” are absolute in it and such that this interpretation is minimal among such interpretations.

LetZ2,Z3, andZ4denote 2nd, 3rd, and 4thorder arithmetic, respectively. We let Harrington’s Principle, HP, denote the statement that there is a realxsuch that everyx-admissible ordinal is a cardinal inL. The known proofs of Harrington’s theorem “$Det\left$implies 0♯exists” are done in two steps: first show that$Det\left$implies HP, and then show that HP implies 0♯exists. The first step is provable inZ2. In this paper we show thatZ2+ HP is equiconsistent with ZFC and thatZ3+ HP is equiconsistent with ZFC + there exists a (...) remarkable cardinal. As a corollary,Z3+ HP does not imply 0♯exists, whereas Z4+ HP does. We also study strengthenings of Harrington’s Principle over 2ndand 3rdorder arithmetic. (shrink)

W. V. Quine famously defended two theses that have fallen rather dramatically out of fashion. The first is that intensions are “creatures of darkness” that ultimately have no place in respectable philosophical circles, owing primarily to their lack of rigorous identity conditions. However, although he was thoroughly familiar with Carnap’s foundational studies in what would become known as possible world semantics, it likely wouldn’t yet have been apparent to Quine that he was fighting a losing battle against intensions, due in (...) large measure to developments stemming from Carnap’s studies and culminating in the work of Kripke, Hintikka, and Bayart. These developments undermined Quine’s crusade against intensions on two fronts. First, in the context of possible world semantics, intensions could after all be given rigorous identity conditions by defining them (in the simplest case) as functions from worlds to appropriate extensions, a fact exploited to powerful and influential effect in logic and linguistics by the likes of Kaplan, Montague, Lewis, and Cresswell. Second, the rise of possible world semantics fueled a strong resurgence of metaphysics in contemporary analytic philosophy that saw properties and propositions widely, fruitfully, and unabashedly adopted as ontological primitives in their own right. This resurgence — happily, in my view — continues into the present day. -/- For a time, at any rate, Quine experienced somewhat better success with his second thesis: that higher-order logic is, at worst, confused and, at best, a quirky notational alternative to standard first-order logic. However, Quine notwithstanding, a great deal of recent work in formal metaphysics transpires in a higher-order logical framework in which properties and propositions fall into an infinite hierarchy of types of (at least) every finite order. Initially, the most philosophically compelling reason for embracing such a framework since Russell first proposed his simple theory of types was simply that it provides a relatively natural explanation of the paradoxes. However, since the seminal work of Prior there has been a growing trend to consider higher-order logic to be the most philosophically natural framework for metaphysical inquiry, many of the contributors to this volume being among the most important and influential advocates of this view. Indeed, this is now quite arguably the dominant view among formal metaphysicians. -/- In this paper, and against the current tide, I will argue in §1 that there are still good reasons to think that Quine’s second battle is not yet lost and that the correct framework for logic is first-order and type-free — properties and propositions, logically speaking, are just individuals among others in a single domain of quantification — and that it arises naturally out of our most basic logical and semantical intuitions. The data I will draw upon are not new and are well-known to contemporary higher-order metaphysicians. However, I will try to defend my thesis in what I believe is a novel way by suggesting that these basic intuitions ground a reasonable distinction between “pure” logic and non-logical theory, and that Russell-style semantic paradoxes of truth and exemplification arise only when we move beyond the purely logical and, hence, do not of themselves provide any strong objection to a type-free conception of properties and propositions. -/- Most of my arguments in §1 are largely independent of any specific account of the nature of properties and propositions beyond their type-freedom. However, I will in addition argue that there are good reasons to take propositions, at least, to be very fine-grained. My arguments are thus bolstered significantly if it can be shown that there are in fact well-defined examples of logics that are not only type-free but which comport with such a conception of propositions. It is the purpose of §2 to lay out a logic of this sort in some detail, drawing especially upon work by George Bealer and related work of my own. With the logic in place, it will be possible to generalize the line of argument noted above regarding Russell-style paradoxes and, in §3, apply it to two propositional paradoxes — the Prior-Kaplan paradox and the Russell-Myhill paradox — that are often taken to threaten the sort of account developed here. (shrink)

Which ultraproducts preserve the validity of formulas of higher order logics? To answer this question, we will introduce natural topologies on ultraproducts. We will show, that ultraproducts preserving certain higher order formulas can be characterized in terms of these topologies. As an application of the above results, we provide a constructive, purely model theoretic characterization for classes definable by second order existential formulas.

This paper discusses lower bounds for proof length, especially as measured by number of steps (inferences). We give the first publicly known proof of Gödel's claim that there is superrecursive (in fact. unbounded) proof speedup of (i + 1)st-order arithmetic over ith-order arithmetic, where arithmetic is formalized in Hilbert-style calculi with + and · as function symbols or with the language of PRA. The same results are established for any weakly schematic formalization of higher- (...) class='Hi'>order logic: this allows all tautologies as axioms and allows all generalizations of axioms as axioms. Our first proof of Gödel's claim is based on self-referential sentences: we give a second proof that avoids the use of self-reference based loosely on a method of Statman. (shrink)

Titelbaum Oxford studies in epistemology, 2015) has recently argued that the Enkratic Principle is incompatible with the view that rational belief is sensitive to higher-order defeat. That is to say, if it cannot be rational to have akratic beliefs of the form “p, but I shouldn’t believe that p,” then rational beliefs cannot be defeated by higher-order evidence, which indicates that they are irrational. In this paper, I distinguish two ways of understanding Titelbaum’s argument, and argue (...) that neither version is sound. The first version can be shown to rest on a subtle, but crucial, misconstrual of the Enkratic Principle. The second version can be resisted through careful consideration of cases of higher-order defeat. The upshot is that proponents of the Enkratic Principle are free to maintain that rational belief is sensitive to higher-order defeat. (shrink)

This article reports that some robustness of the notions of predicativity and of autonomous progression is broken down if as the given infinite total entity we choose some mathematical entities other than the traditionalω. Namely, the equivalence between normal transfinite recursion scheme and newdependent transfinite recursionscheme, which does hold in the context of subsystems of second order number theory, does not hold in the context of subsystems of second order set theory where the universeVof sets is (...) treated as the given totality. (shrink)

The Self-Intimation thesis has it that whatever justificatory status a proposition has, i.e., whether or not we are justified in believing it, we are justified in believing that it has that status. The Infallibility thesis has it that whatever justificatory status we are justified in believing that a proposition has, the proposition in fact has that status. Jointly, Self-Intimation and Infallibility imply that the justificatory status of a proposition closely aligns with the justification we have about that justificatory status. Self-Intimation (...) has two noteworthy implications. First, assuming that we never have sufficient justification for a proposition and for its negation, we can derive Infallibility from Self-Intimation. Interestingly, there seems to be no equivalently simple way to derive Self-Intimation from Infallibility. This asymmetry provides reason for thinking that bottom-level justification rather than top-level justification drives the explanation for why the levels of justification align. Second, Self-Intimation suggests a counterintuitive treatment of information concerning what justificatory status a proposition has. It follows from Self-Intimation that we always have justification for the truth about whether a proposition is justified for us, and therefore, that higher-order evidence could change what we should believe on this matter only by misleading us. This permits forming beliefs about whether a proposition is justified for us without regard to higher-order evidence, and thus reveals a reason for thinking that top-level justification is evidentially inert. (shrink)

Recent authors have drawn attention to a new kind of defeating evidence commonly referred to as higher-order evidence. Such evidence works by inducing doubts that one’s doxastic state is the result of a flawed process – for instance, a process brought about by a reason-distorting drug. I argue that accommodating defeat by higher-order evidence requires a two-tiered theory of justification, and that the phenomenon gives rise to a puzzle. The puzzle is that at least in some (...) situations involving higher-order defeaters the correct epistemic rules issue conflicting recommendations. For instance, a subject ought to believe p, but she ought also to suspend judgment in p. I discuss three responses. The first resists the puzzle by arguing that there is only one correct epistemic rule, an Über-rule. The second accepts that there are genuine epistemic dilemmas. The third appeals to a hierarchy or ordering of correct epistemic rules. I spell out problems for all of these responses. I conclude that the right lesson to draw from the puzzle is that a state can be epistemically rational or justified even if one has what looks to be strong evidence to think that it is not. As such, the considerations put forth constitute a non question-begging argument for a kind of externalism. (shrink)

We study the Lindenbaum algebra ${\fancyscript{A}}$ (WKL o, RCA o) of sentences in the language of second-order arithmetic that imply RCA o and are provable from WKL o. We explore the relationship between ${\Sigma^1_1}$ sentences in ${\fancyscript{A}}$ (WKL o, RCA o) and ${\Pi^0_1}$ classes of subsets of ω. By applying a result of Binns and Simpson (Arch. Math. Logic 43(3), 399–414, 2004) about ${\Pi^0_1}$ classes, we give a specific embedding of the free distributive lattice with countably many (...) generators into ${\fancyscript{A}}$ (WKL o, RCA o). (shrink)

In this paper a proposal by Henkin of a nominalistic interpretation for second and higher-order logic is developed in detail and analysed. It was proposed as a response to Quine’s claim that second and higher-order logic not only are committed to the existence of sets, but also are committed to the existence of more sets than can ever be referred to in the language. Henkin’s interpretation is rarely cited in the debate on semantics and (...) ontological commitments for these logics, though it has many interesting ideas that are worth exploring. The detailed development will show that it employs an early strategy of using substitutional quantification in order to reduce ontological commitments. It will be argued that the perspective adopted for the predicate variables renders it a natural extension of Quine’s nominalistic interpretation for first-order logic. However, we will argue that, with respect to Quine’s nominalistic program and his notion of ontological commitment, still holds and thus Henkin’s interpretation is not nominalistic. Nevertheless, it will be seen that is addressed successfully and this provides further insights on the so-called “Skolem Paradox”. Moreover, the interpretation is ontologically parsimonious and, in this respect, it arguably fares better than a recent proposal by Bob Hale. (shrink)

This is an introductory paper to a series of results linking generic absoluteness results for second and third order number theory to the model theoretic notion of model companionship. Specifically we develop here a general framework linking Woodin’s generic absoluteness results for second order number theory and the theory of universally Baire sets to model companionship and show that (with the required care in details) a $$\Pi _2$$ -property formalized in an appropriate language for second (...) order number theory is forcible from some $$T\supseteq \mathsf {ZFC}+$$ large cardinals if and only if it is consistent with the universal fragment of T if and only if it is realized in the model companion of T. In particular we show that the first order theory of $$H_{\omega _1}$$ is the model companion of the first order theory of the universe of sets assuming the existence of class many Woodin cardinals, and working in a signature with predicates for $$\Delta _0$$ -properties and for all universally Baire sets of reals. We will extend these results also to the theory of $$H_{\aleph _2}$$ in a follow up of this paper. (shrink)

Higher-order realists about properties express their view that there are properties with the help of higher-order rather than first-order quantifiers. They claim two types of advantages for this way of formulating property realism. First, certain gridlocked debates about the nature of properties, such as the immanentism versus transcendentalism dispute, are taken to be dissolved. Second, a further such debate, the tropes versus universals dispute, is taken to be resolved. In this paper I first argue (...) that higher-order realism does not in fact resolve the tropes versus universals dispute. In a constructive spirit, I then develop higher-order realism in a way that leads to a dissolution, rather than a resolution, of this dispute too. (shrink)

It is a commonplace remark that the identity relation, even though not expressible in a first-order language without identity with classical set-theoretic semantics, can be defined in a language without identity, as soon as we admit second-order, set-theoretically interpreted quantifiers binding predicate variables that range over all subsets of the domain. However, there are fairly simple and intuitive higher-order languages with set-theoretic semantics in which the identity relation is not definable. The point is that the (...) definability of identity in higher-order languages not only depends on what variables range over, but also is sensitive to how predication is construed. This paper is a follow-up to , where it has been proven that no actual axiomatization of Leśniewski’s Ontology determines the standard semantics for the epsilon connective. (shrink)

Constructive ZF + full separation is shown to be equiconsistent with Second Order Arithmetic.

The incompleteness of formal systems for arithmetic has been a recognized fact of mathematics. The term “incompleteness” suggests that the formal system in question fails to offer a deduction which it ought to. This chapter focuses on the status of a formal system, Peano Arithmetic, and explores a viewpoint on which Peano Arithmetic occupies an intrinsic, conceptually well-defined region of arithmetical truth. The idea is that it consists of those truths which can be perceived directly from the (...) purely arithmetical content of a categorical conceptual analysis of the notion of natural number. The chapter explores its conceptual stability in light of the apparently destabilizing effect, through extensibility, of the phenomenon of incompleteness. It also offers heuristic and conceptual support for the viewpoint that Peano Arithmetic is the strongest natural first-order system for arithmetic, and that there is a sense in which it is complete with respect to purely arithmetical truth. (shrink)

In this paper, we introduce systems of nonstandard second-order arithmetic which are conservative extensions of systems of second-order arithmetic. Within these systems, we do reverse mathematics for nonstandard analysis, and we can import techniques of nonstandard analysis into analysis in weak systems of second-order arithmetic. Then, we apply nonstandard techniques to a version of Riemannʼs mapping theorem, and show several different versions of Riemannʼs mapping theorem.

The central contention of this book is that second-order logic has a central role to play in laying the foundations of mathematics. In order to develop the argument fully, the author presents a detailed description of higher-order logic, including a comprehensive discussion of its semantics. He goes on to demonstrate the prevalence of second-order concepts in mathematics and the extent to which mathematical ideas can be formulated in higher-order logic. He also (...) shows how first-order languages are often insufficient to codify many concepts in contemporary mathematics, and thus that both first- and higher-order logics are needed to fully reflect current work. Throughout, the emphasis is on discussing the associated philosophical and historical issues and the implications they have for foundational studies. For the most part, the author assumes little more than a familiarity with logic comparable to that provided in a beginning graduate course which includes the incompleteness of arithmetic and the Lowenheim-Skolem theorems. All those concerned with the foundations of mathematics will find this a thought-provoking discussion of some of the central issues in the field today. (shrink)

Many theories of rational belief give a special place to logic. They say that an ideally rational agent would never be uncertain about logical facts. In short: they say that ideal rationality requires "logical omniscience." Here I argue against the view that ideal rationality requires logical omniscience on the grounds that the requirement of logical omniscience can come into conflict with the requirement to proportion one’s beliefs to the evidence. I proceed in two steps. First, I rehearse an influential line (...) of argument from the "higher-order evidence" debate, which purports to show that it would be dogmatic, even for a cognitively infallible agent, to refuse to revise her beliefs about logical matters in response to evidence indicating that those beliefs are irrational. Second, I defend this "anti-dogmatism" argument against two responses put forth by Declan Smithies and David Christensen. Against Smithies’ response, I argue that it leads to irrational self-ascriptions of epistemic luck, and that it obscures the distinction between propositional and doxastic justification. Against Christensen’s response, I argue that it clashes with one of two attractive deontic principles, and that it is extensionally inadequate. Taken together, these criticisms will suggest that the connection between logic and rationality cannot be what it is standardly taken to be—ideal rationality does not require logical omniscience. (shrink)

The paper argues that Jackson's knowledge argument fails to undermine physicalist ontology. First, it is argued that, as this argument stands, it begs the question. Second, it is suggested that by supplementing the argument , this flaw can be remedied insofar as the argument is taken to be an argument against type-physicalism; however, this flaw cannot be remedied insofar as the argument is taken to be an argument against token-physicalism. The argument cannot be supplemented so as to show that (...) experiences have properties which are illegitimate from a physicalist perspective. (shrink)

This Element is an exposition of second- and higher-order logic and type theory. It begins with a presentation of the syntax and semantics of classical second-order logic, pointing up the contrasts with first-order logic. This leads to a discussion of higher-order logic based on the concept of a type. The second Section contains an account of the origins and nature of type theory, and its relationship to set theory. Section 3 introduces (...) Local Set Theory, an important form of type theory based on intuitionistic logic. In Section 4 number of contemporary forms of type theory are described, all of which are based on the so-called 'doctrine of propositions as types'. We conclude with an Appendix in which the semantics for Local Set Theory - based on category theory - is outlined. (shrink)

It’s widely accepted that higher-order defeaters, i.e., evidence that one’s belief is formed in an epistemically defective way, can defeat doxastic justification. However, it’s yet unclear how exactly such kind of defeat happens. Given that many theories of doxastic justification can be understood as fitting the schema of proper basing on propositional justifiers, we might attempt to explain the defeat either by arguing that a higher-order defeater defeats propositional justification or by arguing that it defeats proper (...) basing. It has been argued that the first attempt is unpromising because a variety of prominent theories of propositional justification don’t imply that we lose propositional justification when gaining higher-order defeaters. This leads some scholars to take the second attempt. In this paper, I criticize this second attempt, and I defend the first attempt by arguing that a theory of propositional justification that requires intellectual responsibility can nicely account for higher-order defeat. My proposal is that we lose doxastic justification when we gain higher-order defeaters because there is no intellectually responsible way for us to maintain our original beliefs due to the defeaters. (shrink)

You have higher-order uncertainty iff you are uncertain of what opinions you should have. I defend three claims about it. First, the higher-order evidence debate can be helpfully reframed in terms of higher-order uncertainty. The central question becomes how your first- and higher-order opinions should relate—a precise question that can be embedded within a general, tractable framework. Second, this question is nontrivial. Rational higher-order uncertainty is pervasive, and lies at (...) the foundations of the epistemology of disagreement. Third, the answer is not obvious. The Enkratic Intuition---that your first-order opinions must “line up” with your higher-order opinions---is incorrect; epistemic akrasia can be rational. If all this is right, then it leaves us without answers---but with a clear picture of the question, and a fruitful strategy for pursuing it. (shrink)

This paper examines the ontological commitments of the second-order language of arithmetic and argues that they do not extend beyond the first-order language. Then, building on an argument by George Boolos, we develop a Tarski-style definition of a truth predicate for the second-order language of arithmetic that does not involve the assignment of sets to second-order variables but rather uses the same class of assignments standardly used in a definition for the (...) first-order language. (shrink)

George Boolos's employment of plurals to give an ontologically innocent interpretation of monadic higher‐order quantification continues and extends a minority tradition in thinking about quantification and ontological commitment. An especially prominent member of that tradition is Stanislaw Leśniewski, and shall first draw attention to this work and its relation to that of Boolos. Secondly I shall stand up briefly for plurals as logically respectable expressions, while noting their limitations in offering ontologically deflationary accounts of higher‐order quantification. (...) Thirdly I shall focus on the key idea of ontological commitment and investigate its connection with the idea of truth‐making. Fourthly I shall consider how different interpretations of quantification may sideline Boolos's work, but finally I shall largely support his analysis of quantification involving nominal expressions, while arguing, in the spirit of Arthur Prior, that non‐nominal quantification is non‐committing. (shrink)

Many clinical and psychological constructs are conceptualized to have multivariate higher-order constructs that give rise to multidimensional lower-order traits. Although recent measurement models and computing algorithms can accommodate item response data with a higher-order structure, there are few measurement models and computing techniques that can be employed in the context of complex research synthesis, such as meta-analysis of individual participant data or integrative data analysis. The current study was aimed at modeling complex item responses that (...) can arise when underlying domain-specific, lower-order traits are hierarchically related to multiple higher-order traits for individual participant data from multiple studies. We formulated a multi-group, multivariate higher-order item response theory (HO-IRT) model from a Bayesian perspective and developed a new Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm to simultaneously estimate the (a) structural parameters of the first- and second-order latent traits across multiple groups and (b) item parameters of the model. Results from a simulation study support the feasibility of the MCMC algorithm. From the analysis of real data, we found that a bivariate HO-IRT model with different correlation/covariance structures for different studies fit the data best, compared to a univariate HO-IRT model or other alternate models with unreasonable assumptions (i.e., the same means and covariances across studies). Although more work is needed to further develop the method and to disseminate it, the multi-group multivariate HO-IRT model holds promise to derive a common metric for individual participant data from multiple studies in research synthesis studies for robust inference and for new discoveries. (shrink)

By RCA 0 , we denote a subsystem of second order arithmetic based on Δ0 1 comprehension and Δ0 1 induction. We show within this system that the real number system R satisfies all the theorems (possibly with non-standard length) of the theory of real closed fields under an appropriate truth definition. This enables us to develop linear algebra and polynomial ring theory over real and complex numbers, so that we particularly obtain Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz in RCA 0.

We investigate the strength of the existence of a non-principal ultrafilter over fragments of higher-order arithmetic. Let [Formula: see text] be the statement that a non-principal ultrafilter on ℕ exists and let [Formula: see text] be the higher-order extension of ACA0. We show that [Formula: see text] is [Formula: see text]-conservative over [Formula: see text] and thus that [Formula: see text] is conservative over PA. Moreover, we provide a program extraction method and show that from (...) a proof of a strictly [Formula: see text] statement ∀ f ∃ g A qf in [Formula: see text] a realizing term in Gödel's system T can be extracted. This means that one can extract a term t ∈ T, such that ∀ f A qf). (shrink)

Truth predicates are widely believed to be capable of serving a certain logical or quasi-logical function. There is little consensus, however, on the exact nature of this function. We offer a series of formal results in support of the thesis that disquotational truth is a device to simulate higher-order resources in a first-order setting. More specifically, we show that any theory formulated in a higher-order language can be naturally and conservatively interpreted in a first-order (...) theory with a disquotational truth or truth-of predicate. In the first part of the paper we focus on the relation between truth and full impredicative sentential quantification. The second part is devoted to the relation between truth-of and full impredicative predicate quantification. (shrink)

We show that there is a [Formula: see text]-model of second-order arithmetic in which the choice scheme holds, but the dependent choice scheme fails for a [Formula: see text]-assertion, confirming a conjecture of Stephen Simpson. We obtain as a corollary that the Reflection Principle, stating that every formula reflects to a transitive set, can fail in models of [Formula: see text]. This work is a rediscovery by the first two authors of a result obtained by the third (...) author in [V. G. Kanovei, On descriptive forms of the countable axiom of choice, Investigations on nonclassical logics and set theory, Work Collect., Moscow, 3-136 ]. (shrink)

Higher-order evidence is, roughly, evidence of evidence. The idea is that evidence comes in levels. At the first, or lowest, evidential level is evidence of the familiar type—evidence concerning some proposition that is not itself about evidence. At a higher evidential level the evidence concerns some proposition about the evidence at a lower level. Only in relatively recent years has this less familiar type of evidence been explicitly identified as a subject of epistemological focus, and the work (...) on it remains relegated to a small circle of authors and a short stack of published articles—far disproportionate to the attention it deserves. It deserves to occupy center stage for several reasons. First, higher-order evidence frequently arises in a strikingly diverse range of epistemic contexts, including testimony, disagreement, empirical observation, introspection, and memory, among others. Second, in many of the contexts in which it arises, such evidence plays a crucial epistemic role. Third, the precise role it plays is complex, gives rise to a number of interesting epistemological puzzles, and for these reasons remains controversial and is not yet fully understood. As such, higher-order evidence merits systematic investigation. This thesis undertakes such an investigation. It aims to produce a thorough account of higher-order evidence—what it is, how it works, and its epistemic consequences. Chapter 1 serves as a general introduction to the topic and an overview of the existing literature, but primarily aims to further elucidate the concept of higher-order evidence and build a theoretical framework for later chapters. Chapter 2 develops an account of what I call “higher-order support”: the bearing higher-order evidence has, not on corresponding “lower-order evidence” (roughly, the evidence the higher-order evidence is about), but on corresponding “object-level propositions” (roughly, the propositions the higher-order evidence alleges the lower-order evidence to be about). Chapter 3 develops an account of “levels interaction”: the effect on overall support when the different evidential levels combine. Chapter 4 identifies important consequences of the theoretical results of the previous two chapters and applies the theory to four select cases of current epistemological controversy—testimony, memory, the closure of inquiry, and disagreement. (shrink)

In this paper, we show within ${\mathsf{RCA}_0}$ that both the Jordan curve theorem and the Schönflies theorem are equivalent to weak König’s lemma. Within ${\mathsf {WKL}_0}$ , we prove the Jordan curve theorem using an argument of non-standard analysis based on the fact that every countable non-standard model of ${\mathsf {WKL}_0}$ has a proper initial part that is isomorphic to itself (Tanaka in Math Logic Q 43:396–400, 1997).

This chapter explores the metaphysical views about higher-order logic held by two individuals responsible for introducing it to philosophy: Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970). Frege understood a function at first as the remainder of the content of a proposition when one component was taken out or seen as replaceable by others, and later as a mapping between objects. His logic employed second-order quantifiers ranging over such functions, and he saw a deep division in nature (...) between objects and functions. Russell understood propositional functions as what is obtained when constituents of propositions are replaced by variables, but eventually denied that they were entities in their own right. Both encountered contradictions when supposing there to exist as many objects as functions, and both adopted views about the meaningfulness of higher-order discourse that were difficult to state from within their own strictures. (shrink)

Second-order arithmetic and class theory are second-order theories of mathematical subjects of foundational importance, namely, arithmetic and set theory. Despite the similarity in appearance, there turned out to be significant mathematical dissimilarities between them. The present paper studies various principles in class theory, from such a comparative perspective between second-order arithmetic and class theory, and presents a few new dissimilarities between them.

Yu, X., Riesz representation theorem, Borel measures and subsystems of second-order arithmetic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 59 65-78. Formalized concept of finite Borel measures is developed in the language of second-order arithmetic. Formalization of the Riesz representation theorem is proved to be equivalent to arithmetical comprehension. Codes of Borel sets of complete separable metric spaces are defined and proved to be meaningful in the subsystem ATR0. Arithmetical transfinite recursion is enough to prove (...) the measurability of Borel sets for any finite Borel measure on a compact complete separable metric space. (shrink)

In this paper we study the logical strength of the determinacy of infinite binary games in terms of second order arithmetic. We define new determinacy schemata inspired by the Wadge classes of Polish spaces and show the following equivalences over the system RCA0*, which consists of the axioms of discrete ordered semi‐rings with exponentiation, Δ10 comprehension and Π00 induction, and which is known as a weaker system than the popularbase theory RCA0: 1. Bisep(Δ10, Σ10)‐Det* ↔ WKL0, 2. (...) Bisep(Δ10, Σ20)‐Det* ↔ ATR0 + Σ11 induction, 3. Bisep(Σ10, Σ20)‐Det* ↔ Sep(Σ10, Σ20)‐Det* ↔ Π11‐CA0, 4. Bisep(Δ20, Σ20)‐Det* ↔ Π11‐TR0, where Det* stands for the determinacy of infinite games in the Cantor space (© 2009 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim). (shrink)

We introduce a herbrandized functional interpretation of a first-order semi-intuitionistic extension of Heyting Arithmetic and study its main properties. We then extend the interpretation to a certain system of second-order arithmetic which includes a (classically false) formulation of the FAN principle and weak König's lemma. It is shown that any first-order formula provable in this system is classically true. It is perhaps worthy of note that, in our interpretation, second-order variables are interpreted (...) by finite sets of natural numbers. (shrink)

We study Lebesgue and Atsuji spaces within subsystems of second order arithmetic. The former spaces are those such that every open covering has a Lebesgue number, while the latter are those such that every continuous function defined on them is uniformly continuous. The main results we obtain are the following: the statement “every compact space is Lebesgue” is equivalent to $\hbox{\sf WKL}_0$ ; the statements “every perfect Lebesgue space is compact” and “every perfect Atsuji space is compact” (...) are equivalent to $\hbox{\sf ACA}_0$ ; the statement “every Lebesgue space is Atsuji” is provable in $\hbox{\sf RCA}_0$ ; the statement “every Atsuji space is Lebesgue” is provable in $\hbox{\sf ACA}_0$ . We also prove that the statement “the distance from a closed set is a continuous function” is equivalent to $\Pi^1_1\hbox{-\sf CA}_0$. (shrink)

The problematic features of Quine's set theories NF and ML are a result of his replacing the higher-order predicate logic of type theory by a first-order logic of membership, and can be resolved by returning to a second-order logic of predication with nominalized predicates as abstract singular terms. We adopt a modified Fregean position called conceptual realism in which the concepts (unsaturated cognitive structures) that predicates stand for are distinguished from the extensions (or intensions) that (...) their nominalizations denote as singular terms. We argue against Quine's view that predicate quantifiers can be given a referential interpretation only if the entities predicates stand for on such an interpretation are the same as the classes (assuming extensionality) that nominalized predicates denote as singular terms. Quine's alternative of giving predicate quantifiers only a substitutional interpretation is compared with a constructive version of conceptual realism, which with a logic of nominalized predicates is compared with Quine's description of conceptualism as a ramified theory of classes. We argue against Quine's implicit assumption that conceptualism cannot account for impredicative concept-formation and compare holistic conceptual realism with Quine's class Platonism. (shrink)