Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:37:00.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Logicality and Invariance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

Denis Bonnay
Denis Bonnay*
Affiliation:
Département D'études Cognitives & Ihpst, Ećole Normale Supérieure, 29, RUE D'ulm, 75005 Paris, FranceE-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper deals with the problem of giving a principled characterization of the class of logical constants. According to the so-called Tarski–Sher thesis, an operation is logical iff it is invariant under permutation. In the model-theoretic tradition, this criterion has been widely accepted as giving a necessary condition for an operation to be logical. But it has been also widely criticized on the account that it counts too many operations as logical, failing thus to provide a sufficient condition.

Our aim is to solve this problem of overgeneration by modifying the invariance criterion. We introduce a general notion of invariance under a similarity relation and present the connection between similarity relations and classes of invariant operations. The next task is to isolate a similarity relation well-suited for a definition of logicality. We argue that the standard arguments in favor of invariance under permutation, which rely on the generality and the formality of logic, should be modified. The revised arguments are shown to support an alternative to Tarski's criterion, according to which an operation is logical iff it is invariant under potential isomorphism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 29 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barwise, J. [1973], Back and forth through infinitary logic, Model theory (Morley, M. D., editor), Studies in Mathematics, vol. 8, Mathematical Association of America, pp. 5–34.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. [1985], Background and aims, Model-theoretic logics (Barwise, J. and Feferman, S., editors), Springer, pp. 25–76.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Cooper, R. [1981], Generalized quantifiers and natural language, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 4, pp. 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J. [2002], Logical constants, the variable fortunes of an elusive notion, Reflections on the foundations of mathematics: Essays in honor of Solomon Feferman (Sieg, W., Sommer, R., and Talcott, C., editors), Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 15, ASL and AK Peters, Ltd., Natick, MA, pp. 420–440.Google Scholar
Bonnay, D. [2006], Qu'est-ce qu'une constante logique?, Ph.D. Dissertation, University Paris 1.Google Scholar
Casanovas, E. [2007], Logical operations and invariance, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Došen, K. [1994], Logical constants as punctuation marks, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 30, pp. 362–381.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. [1991], The logical basis of metaphysics, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Etchemendy, J. [1999], The concept of logical consequence, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [1968], Persistent and invariant formulas for outer extensions, Compositio Mathematica, vol. 20, pp. 29–52.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [1972], Infinitary properties, local functors, and systems of ordinal functions, Conference in Mathematical Logic, London '70 (Hodges, W., editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 255, Springer, pp. 63–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. [1999], Logic, logics, and logicism, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flum, J. [1985], Characterizing logics, Model-theoretic logics (Barwise, J. and Feferman, S., editors), Springer, pp. 77–120.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. [1940], The consistency of the axiom of choice and of the generalized continuum hypothesis with the axioms of set theory, Annals of Mathematical Studies, vol. 3, Princeton University Press, reprinted in Kurt Gödel, Collected Works , vol. II, (S. Feferman et alii, editors), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990, pp. 33–101.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. and Westerståhl, D. [1997], Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic, Handbook of logic and language (van Benthem, J. and ter Meulen, A., editors), Elsevier, pp. 837–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, J.G. [2000], What does itmean to say that logic is formal, Ph.D.Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Makowski, J. A. and Mundici, D. [1985], Abstract equivalence relations, Model-theoretic logics (Barwise, J. and Feferman, S., editors), Springer, pp. 717–746.Google Scholar
McGee, V. [1996], Logical operations, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 25, pp. 567–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mostowski, A. [1957], On a generalization of quantifiers, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 44, pp. 12–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. [1986], Philosophy of logic, second ed., Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. [1998], Logical consequence: Models and modality, Philosophy of Mathematics Today: Proceedings of an International Conference in Munich (Schirn, , editor), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sher, G. [1991], The bounds of logic, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1986], What are logical notions?, History and Philosophy of Logic, vol. 7, pp. 143–154.Google Scholar
Väänänen, J. [1985], Set-theoretic definability of logics, Model-theoretic logics (Barwise, J. and Feferman, S., editors), Springer, pp. 599–644.Google Scholar