It is not my claim that the ‘L¨ owenheim-Skolem paradox’ is an antinomy in formal logic; but I shall argue that it is an antinomy, or something close to it, in philosophy of language. Moreover, I shall argue that the resolution of the antinomy—the only resolution that I myself can see as making sense—has profound implications for the great metaphysical dispute about realism which has always been the central dispute in the philosophy of language.

This paper concerns Tarski’s use of the term “model” in his 1936 paper “On the Concept of Logical Consequence.” Against several of Tarski’s recent defenders, I argue that Tarski employed a non-standard conception of models in that paper. Against Tarski’s detractors, I argue that this non-standard conception is more philosophically plausible than it may appear. Finally, I make a few comments concerning the traditionally puzzling case of Tarski’s ω-rule example.

Skolem's Paradox involves a seeming conflict between two theorems from classical logic. The Löwenheim Skolem theorem says that if a first order theory has infinite models, then it has models whose domains are only countable. Cantor's theorem says that some sets are uncountable. Skolem's Paradox arises when we notice that the basic principles of Cantorian set theory—i.e., the very principles used to prove Cantor's theorem on the existence of uncountable sets—can themselves be formulated as a collection of first order sentences. (...) How can the very principles which prove the existence of uncountable sets be satisfied by a model which is itself only countable? How can a countable model satisfy the first order sentence which says that there are uncountably many mathematical objects—e.g., uncountably many real numbers? (shrink)

I present two generalizations of Putnam's model-theoretic argument against realism. The first replaces Putnam's model theory with some new, and substantially simpler, model theory, while the second replaces Putnam's model theory with some more accessible results from astronomy. By design, both of these new arguments fail. But the similarities between these new arguments and Putnam's original arguments illuminate the latter's overall structure, and the flaws in these new arguments highlight the corresponding flaws in Putnam's arguments.

In 1999, Jeffrey Ketland published a paper which posed a series of technical problems for deflationary theories of truth. Ketland argued that deflationism is incompatible with standard mathematical formalizations of truth, and he claimed that alternate deflationary formalizations are unable to explain some central uses of the truth predicate in mathematics. He also used Beth’s definability theorem to argue that, contrary to deflationists’ claims, the T-schema cannot provide an ‘implicit definition’ of truth. In this article, I want to challenge this (...) final argument. Whatever other faults deflationism may have, the T-schema does provide an implicit definition of the truth predicate. Or so, at any rate, I shall argue. (shrink)

In his new paper, “Eligibility and Inscrutability,” J. R. G. Williams presents a surprising new challenge to David Lewis’ theory of interpretation. Although Williams frames this challenge primarily as a response to Lewis’ criticisms of Putnam’s model-theoretic argument, the challenge itself goes to the heart of Lewis’ own account of interpretation. Further, and leaving Lewis’ project aside for a moment, Williams’ argument highlights some important—and some fairly general—points concerning the relationship between model theory and semantic determinacy.

This paper concerns Tarski's use of the term "model" in his 1936 paper "On the Concept of Logical Consequence." Against several of Tarski's recent defenders, I argue that Tarski employed a non-standard conception of models in that paper. Against Tarski's detractors, I argue that this non-standard conception is more philosophically plausible than it may appear. Finally, I make a few comments concerning the traditionally puzzling case of Tarski's $\omega$-rule example.

The Lowenheim-Skolem theorems say that if a first-order theory has infinite models, then it has models which are only countably infinite. Cantor's theorem says that some sets are uncountable. Together, these theorems induce a puzzle known as Skolem's Paradox: the very axioms of set theory which prove the existence of uncountable sets can be satisfied by a merely countable model. ;This dissertation examines Skolem's Paradox from three perspectives. After a brief introduction, chapters two and three examine several formulations of Skolem's (...) Paradox in order to disentangle the roles which set theory, model theory, and philosophy play in these formulations. In these chapters, I accomplish three things. First, I clear up some of the mathematical ambiguities which have all too often infected discussions of Skolem's Paradox. Second, I isolate a key assumption upon which Skolem's Paradox rests, and I show why this assumption has to be false. Finally, I argue that there is no single explanation as to how a countable model can satisfy the axioms of set theory ;In chapter four, I turn to a second puzzle. Why, even though philosophers have known since the early 1920's that Skolem's Paradox has a relatively simple technical solution, have they continued to find this paradox so troubling? I argue that philosophers' attitudes towards Skolem's Paradox have been shaped by the acceptance of certain, fairly specific, claims in the philosophy of language. I then tackle these philosophical claims head on. In some cases, I argue that the claims depend on an incoherent account of mathematical language. In other cases, I argue that the claims are so powerful that they render Skolem's Paradox trivial. In either case, though, examination of the philosophical underpinnings of Skolem's Paradox renders that paradox decidedly unparadoxical. ;Finally, in chapter five, I turn away from "generic" formulations of Skolem's Paradox to examine Hilary Putnam's "model-theoretic argument against realism." I show that Putnam's argument involves mistakes of both the mathematical and the philosophical variety, and that these two types of mistake are closely related. Along the way, I clear up some of the mutual charges of question begging which have characterized discussions between Putnam and his critics. (shrink)

In an earlier paper, I claimed that one version of Putnam's model-theoretic argument against realism turned on a subtle, but philosophically significant, mathematical mistake. Recently, Luca Bellotti has criticized my argument for this claim. This paper responds to Bellotti's criticisms.

This note concerns a recent paper by Hud Hudson on the nature of 'receptacles'. It simplifies the mathematics in Hudson's paper, and it eliminates almost all of the topology in Hudson's arguments.

odel’s theorem than he has often been credited with. Substantively, they find in Wittgenstein’s remarks “a philosophical claim of great interest,” and they argue that, when this claim is properly assessed, it helps to vindicate some of Wittgenstein’s broader views on G¨.

In this dissertation we study two-cardinal phenomena—both of the admitting cardinals variety and of the Chang’s Conjecture variety—under the assumption that all our models have stable theories. All our results involve two, relatively widely accepted generalizations of the traditional definitions in this area. First, we allow the relevant subsets of our models to be picked out by (perhaps infinitary) partial types; second we consider δ-cardinal problems as well as two-cardinal problems.

Over the years, Skolem’s Paradox has generated a fairly steady stream of philosophical discussion; nonetheless, the overwhelming consensus among philosophers and logicians is that the paradox doesn’t constitute a mathematical problem (i.e., it doesn’t constitute a real contradiction). Further, there’s general agreement as to why the paradox doesn’t constitute a mathematical problem. By looking at the way firstorder structures interpret quantifiers—and, in particular, by looking at how this interpretation changes as we move from structure to structure—we can give a technically (...) adequate “solution” to Skolem’s Paradox. So, whatever the philosophical upshot of Skolem’s Paradox may be, the mathematical side of Skolem’s Paradox seems to be relatively straightforward. (shrink)

This paper discusses two combinatorial problems in stability theory. First we prove a partition result for subsets of stable models: for any A and B, we can partition A into |B |<κ(T ) pieces, Ai | i < |B |<κ(T ) , such that for each Ai there is a Bi ⊆ B where |Bi| < κ(T ) and Ai..

This paper discusses two combinatorial problems in stability theory. First we prove a partition result for subsets of stable models: for any A and B, we can partition A into |B|$^{ |B|, then we try to find A' $\subset$ A and B' $\subset$ B such that |A'| is as large as possible, |B'| is as small as possible, and A' $\&2ADD;$ $\underset{B'}$ B. We prove some positive results in this direction, and we discuss the optimality of these results under ZFC (...) + GCH. (shrink)

We examine two-cardinal problems for the class of O-minimal theories. We prove that an O-minimal theory which admits some (κ, λ) must admit every (κ , λ ). We also prove that every “reasonable” variant of Chang’s Conjecture is true for O-minimal structures. Finally, we generalize these results from the two-cardinal case to the δ-cardinal case for arbitrary ordinals δ.

We examine two-cardinal problems for the class of O-minimal theories. We prove that an O-minimal theory which admits some must admit every. We also prove that every "reasonable" variant of Chang's Conjecture is true for O-minimal structures. Finally, we generalize these results from the two-cardinal case to the $\delta$-cardinal case for arbitrary ordinals $\delta$.

You’ll be pleased to know that I don’t intend to use these remarks to comment on all of the papers presented at this conference. I won’t try to show that one paper was right about this topic, that another was wrong was about that topic, or that several of our conference participants were talking past one another. Nor will I try to adjudicate any of the discussions which took place in between our sessions. Instead, I’ll use these remarks to make (...) two simple points: one about logicism in the 20th century and one about neo-logicism here at the start of the 21st. (shrink)