Causal models defined in terms of structural equations have proved to be quite a powerful way of representing knowledge regarding causality. However, a number of authors have given examples that seem to show that the Halpern–Pearl (HP) definition of causality (Halpern & Pearl, 2005) gives intuitively unreasonable answers. Here it is shown that, for each of these examples, we can give two stories consistent with the description in the example, such that intuitions regarding causality are quite different for each story. By adding additional variables, we can disambiguate the stories. Moreover, in the resulting causal models, the HP definition of causality gives the intuitively correct answer. It is also shown that, by adding extra variables, a modification to the original HP definition made to deal with an example of Hopkins & Pearl (2003) may not be necessary. Given how much can be done by adding extra variables, there might be a concern that the notion of causality is somewhat unstable. Can adding extra variables in a “conservative” way (i.e., maintaining all the relations between the variables in the original model) cause the answer to the question “Is X = x a cause of Y = y?” to alternate between “yes” and “no”? It is shown that we can have such alternation infinitely often, but if we take normality into consideration, we cannot. Indeed, under appropriate normality assumptions. Adding an extra variable can change the answer from “yes’ to “no”, but after that, it cannot change back to “yes”.

This article bears on four topics: observational predicates and phenomenal properties, vagueness, strict finitism as a philosophy of mathematics, and the analysis of feasible computability. It is argued that reactions to strict finitism point towards a semantics for vague predicates in the form of nonstandard models of weak arithmetical theories of the sort originally introduced to characterize the notion of feasibility as understood in computational complexity theory. The approach described eschews the use of nonclassical logic and related devices like degrees of truth or supervaluation. Like epistemic approaches to vagueness, it may thus be smoothly integrated with the use of classical model theory as widely employed in natural language semantics. But unlike epistemicism, the described approach fails to imply either the existence of sharp boundaries or the failure of tolerance for soritical predicates. Applications of measurement theory (in the sense of Krantz, Luce, Suppes, & Tversky (1971)) to vagueness in the nonstandard setting are also explored.

In this paper, we investigate the phenomenon of speed-up in the context of theories of truth. We focus on axiomatic theories of truth extending Peano arithmetic. We are particularly interested on whether conservative extensions of PA have speed-up and on how this relates to a deflationist account. We show that disquotational theories have no significant speed-up, in contrast to some compositional theories, and we briefly assess the philosophical implications of these results.

In 1981, Takeuti introduced quantum set theory by constructing a model of set theory based on quantum logic represented by the lattice of closed linear subspaces of a Hilbert space in a manner analogous to Boolean-valued models of set theory, and showed that appropriate counterparts of the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC) hold in the model. In this paper, we aim at unifying Takeuti’s model with Boolean-valued models by constructing models based on general complete orthomodular lattices, and generalizing the transfer principle in Boolean-valued models, which asserts that every theorem in ZFC set theory holds in the models, to a general form holding in every orthomodular-valued model. One of the central problems in this program is the well-known arbitrariness in choosing a binary operation for implication. To clarify what properties are required to obtain the generalized transfer principle, we introduce a class of binary operations extending the implication on Boolean logic, called generalized implications, including even nonpolynomially definable operations. We study the properties of those operations in detail and show that all of them admit the generalized transfer principle. Moreover, we determine all the polynomially definable operations for which the generalized transfer principle holds. This result allows us to abandon the Sasaki arrow originally assumed for Takeuti’s model and leads to a much more flexible approach to quantum set theory.

In 1837, Dirichlet proved that there are infinitely many primes in any arithmetic progression in which the terms do not all share a common factor. Modern presentations of the proof are explicitly of higher-order, in that they involve quantifying over and summing over Dirichlet characters, which are certain types of functions. The notion of a character is only implicit in Dirichlet’s original proof, and the subsequent history shows a very gradual transition to the modern mode of presentation.

In this essay, we study the history of Dirichlet’s theorem with an eye towards understanding the methodological pressures that influenced some of the ontological shifts that occurred in nineteenth century mathematics. In particular, we use the history to understand some of the reasons that functions are treated as ordinary objects in contemporary mathematics, as well as some of the reasons one might want to resist such treatment.

This paper provides a historically sensitive discussion of Carnap’s theory of extremal axioms developed first in the late 1920s. The main focus is set on the unpublished documents of the projected second part of his manuscript Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Axiomatik (RC 081-01-01 to 081-01-33). Carnap’s theory will be assessed with respect to two interpretive issues. The first concerns his mathematical sources, that is, the mathematical axioms on which his extremal axioms were based. The second concerns Carnap’s understanding of the relationship between the “completeness of the models” and other metatheoretic notions investigated by him at the time, most notably that of categoricity. The paper surveys Carnap’s different attempts to explicate the extremal properties of a theory and puts his results in context with related metamathematical research at the time.

A normalization procedure is given for classical natural deduction with the standard rule of indirect proof applied to arbitrary formulas. For normal derivability and the subformula property, it is sufficient to permute down instances of indirect proof whenever they have been used for concluding a major premiss of an elimination rule. The result applies even to natural deduction for classical modal logic.

Many recent writers in the philosophy of mathematics have put great weight on the relative categoricity of the traditional axiomatizations of our foundational theories of arithmetic and set theory (Parsons, 1990; Parsons, 2008, sec. 49; McGee, 1997; Lavine, 1999; Väänänen & Wang, 2014). Another great enterprise in contemporary philosophy of mathematics has been Wright’s and Hale’s project of founding mathematics on abstraction principles (Hale & Wright, 2001; Cook, 2007). In Walsh (2012), it was noted that one traditional abstraction principle, namely Hume’s Principle, had a certain relative categoricity property, which here we term natural relative categoricity. In this paper, we show that most other abstraction principles are not naturally relatively categorical, so that there is in fact a large amount of incompatibility between these two recent trends in contemporary philosophy of mathematics. To better understand the precise demands of relative categoricity in the context of abstraction principles, we compare and contrast these constraints to (i) stability-like acceptability criteria on abstraction principles (cf. Cook, 2012), (ii) the Tarski-Sher logicality requirements on abstraction principles studied by Antonelli (2010b) and Fine (2002), and (iii) supervaluational ideas coming out of the work of Hodes (1984, 1990, 1991).

We shall be concerned with the modal logic BK—which is based on the Belnap–Dunn four-valued matrix, and can be viewed as being obtained from the least normal modal logic K by adding ‘strong negation’. Though all four values ‘truth’, ‘falsity’, ‘neither’ and ‘both’ are employed in its Kripke semantics, only the first two are expressible as terms. We show that expanding the original language of BK to include constants for ‘neither’ or/and ‘both’ leads to quite unexpected results. To be more precise, adding one of these constants has the effect of eliminating the respective value at the level of BK-extensions. In particular, if one adds both of these, then the corresponding lattice of extensions turns out to be isomorphic to that of ordinary normal modal logics.

The paper provides a proof theoretic characterization of the Russellian theory of definite descriptions (RDD) as characterized by Kalish, Montague and Mar (KMM). To this effect three sequent calculi are introduced: LKID0, LKID1 and LKID2. LKID0 is an auxiliary system which is easily shown to be equivalent to KMM. The main research is devoted to LKID1 and LKID2. The former is simpler in the sense of having smaller number of rules and, after small change, satisfies cut elimination but fails to satisfy the subformula property. In LKID2 an additional analysis of different kinds of identities leads to proliferation of rules but yields the subformula property. This refined proof theoretic analysis leading to fully analytic calculus with constructive proof of cut elimination is the main contribution of the paper.

Feferman’s argument presented in 1977 seemed to block any possibility for category theory to become a serious contender in the foundational game. According to Feferman, two obstacles stand in the way: one logical and the other psychological. We address both obstacles in this paper, arguing that although Feferman’s argument is indeed convincing in a certain context, it can be dissolved entirely by modifying the context appropriately.

Recent discussions on Fregean and neo-Fregean foundations for arithmetic and real analysis pay much attention to what is called either ‘Application Constraint’ ($AC$) or ‘Frege Constraint’ ($FC$), the requirement that a mathematical theory be so outlined that it immediately allows explaining for its applicability. We distinguish between two constraints, which we, respectively, denote by the latter of these two names, by showing how $AC$ generalizes Frege’s views while $FC$ comes closer to his original conceptions. Different authors diverge on the interpretation of $FC$ and on whether it applies to definitions of both natural and real numbers. Our aim is to trace the origins of $FC$ and to explore how different understandings of it can be faithful to Frege’s views about such definitions and to his foundational program. After rehearsing the essential elements of the relevant debate (§1), we appropriately distinguish $AC$ from $FC$ (§2). We discuss six rationales which may motivate the adoption of different instances of $AC$ and $FC$ (§3). We turn to the possible interpretations of $FC$ (§4), and advance a Semantic $FC$ (§4.1), arguing that while it suits Frege’s definition of natural numbers (4.1.1), it cannot reasonably be imposed on definitions of real numbers (§4.1.2), for reasons only partly similar to those offered by Crispin Wright (§4.1.3). We then rehearse a recent exchange between Bob Hale and Vadim Batitzky to shed light on Frege’s conception of real numbers and magnitudes (§4.2). We argue that an Architectonic version of $FC$ is indeed faithful to Frege’s definition of real numbers, and compatible with his views on natural ones. Finally, we consider how attributing different instances of $FC$ to Frege and appreciating the role of the Architectonic $FC$ can provide a more perspicuous understanding of his foundational program, by questioning common pictures of his logicism (§5).

Modal logic S5 is commonly viewed as an epistemic logic that captures the most basic properties of knowledge. Kripke proved a completeness theorem for the first-order modal logic S5 with respect to a possible worlds semantics. A multiagent version of the propositional S5 as well as a version of the propositional S5 that describes properties of distributed knowledge in multiagent systems has also been previously studied. This article proposes a version of S5-like epistemic logic of distributed knowledge with quantifiers ranging over the set of agents, and proves its soundness and completeness with respect to a Kripke semantics.

We consider a simple modal logic whose nonmodal part has conjunction and disjunction as connectives and whose modalities come in adjoint pairs, but are not in general closure operators. Despite absence of negation and implication, and of axioms corresponding to the characteristic axioms of (e.g.) T, S4, and S5, such logics are useful, as shown in previous work by Baltag, Coecke, and the first author, for encoding and reasoning about information and misinformation in multiagent systems. For the propositional-only fragment of such a dynamic epistemic logic, we present an algebraic semantics, using lattices with agent-indexed families of adjoint pairs of operators, and a cut-free sequent calculus. The calculus exploits operators on sequents, in the style of “nested” or “tree-sequent” calculi; cut-admissibility is shown by constructive syntactic methods. The applicability of the logic is illustrated by reasoning about the muddy children puzzle, for which the calculus is augmented with extra rules to express the facts of the muddy children scenario.

Nonclassical theories of truth that take truth to be transparent have some obvious advantages over any classical theory of truth (which must take it as nontransparent on pain of inconsistency). But several authors have recently argued that there’s also a big disadvantage of nonclassical theories as compared to their “external” classical counterparts: proof-theoretic strength. While conceding the relevance of this, the paper argues that there is a natural way to beef up extant internal theories so as to remove their proof-theoretic disadvantage. It is suggested that the resulting internal theories are preferable to their external counterparts.

Gödel argued that Cantor’s notion of cardinal number was uniquely correct. More recent work has defended alternative “Euclidean”' theories of set size, in which Cantor’s Principle (two sets have the same size if and only if there is a one-to-one correspondence between them) is abandoned in favor of the Part–Whole Principle (if A is a proper subset of B then A is smaller than B). Here we see from simple examples, not that Euclidean theories of set size are wrong, nor merely that they are counterintuitive, but that they must be either very weak or in large part arbitrary and misleading. This limits their epistemic usefulness.

We present an extension of the basic revision theory of circular definitions with a unary operator, □. We present a Fitch-style proof system that is sound and complete with respect to the extended semantics. The logic of the box gives rise to a simple modal logic, and we relate provability in the extended proof system to this modal logic via a completeness theorem, using interpretations over circular definitions, analogous to Solovay’s completeness theorem for GL using arithmetical interpretations. We adapt our proof to a special class of circular definitions as well as to the first-order case.

Let κ be an uncountable cardinal. Using the theory of conditional probability associated with de Finetti (1974) and Dubins (1975), subject to several structural assumptions for creating sufficiently many measurable sets, and assuming that κ is not a weakly inaccessible cardinal, we show that each probability that is not κ-additive has conditional probabilities that fail to be conglomerable in a partition of cardinality no greater than κ. This generalizes a result of Schervish, Seidenfeld, & Kadane (1984), which established that each finite but not countably additive probability has conditional probabilities that fail to be conglomerable in some countable partition.

The deviation of mathematical proof—proof in mathematical practice—from the ideal of formal proof—proof in formal logic—has led many philosophers of mathematics to reconsider the commonly accepted view according to which the notion of formal proof provides an accurate descriptive account of mathematical proof. This, in turn, has motivated a search for alternative accounts of mathematical proof purporting to be more faithful to the reality of mathematical practice. Yet, in order to develop and evaluate such alternative accounts, it appears as a necessary prerequisite to first possess a clear picture of what the deviation of mathematical proof from formal proof consists in. The present work aims to contribute building such a picture by investigating the relation between the elementary steps of deduction constituting the two types of proofs—mathematical inference and logical inference. Many claims have been made in the literature regarding the relation between mathematical inference and logical inference, most of them stating that the former is lacking properties that are constitutive of the latter. Such differentiating claims are, however, usually put forward without a clear conception of the properties occurring in them, and are generally considered to be immediately justified by our direct acquaintance, or phenomenological experience, with the two types of inferences. The present study purports to advance our understanding of the relation between mathematical inference and logical inference by developing a detailed philosophical analysis of the differentiating claims, that is, an analysis of the meaning of the differentiating claims—through the properties that occur in them—as well as the reasons that support them. To this end, we provide at the outset a representative list of the different properties of logical inference that have occurred in the differentiating claims, and we notice that they all boil down to the three properties of formality, generality, and mechanicality. For each one of these properties, our analysis proceeds in two steps: we first provide precise conceptual characterizations of the different ways logical inference has been said to be formal, general, and mechanical, in the philosophical and logical literature on formal proof; we then examine why mathematical inference does not appear to be formal, general, and mechanical, for the different variations of these notions identified. Our study results in a precise conceptual apparatus for expressing and discussing the properties differentiating mathematical inference from logical inference, and provides a first inventory of the various reasons supporting the observations of those differences. The differentiating claims constitute thus a set of data that any philosophical account of mathematical inference and proof purporting to be more faithful to mathematical practice ought to be able to accommodate and explain.

The trilattice SIXTEEN3 introduced in Shramko & Wansing (2005) is a natural generalization of the famous bilattice FOUR2. Some Hilbert-style proof systems for trilattice logics related to SIXTEEN3 have recently been studied (Odintsov, 2009; Shramko & Wansing, 2005). In this paper, three sequent calculi GB, FB, and QB are presented for Odintsov’s (2009) first-degree proof system ⊢B related to SIXTEEN3. The system GB is a standard Gentzen-type sequent calculus, FB is a four-place (horizontal) matrix sequent calculus, and QB is a quadruple (vertical) matrix sequent calculus. In contrast with GB, the calculus FB satisfies the subformula property, and the calculus QB reflects Odintsov’s coordinate valuations associated with valuations in SIXTEEN3. The equivalence between GB, FB, and QB, the cut-elimination theorems for these calculi, and the decidability of ⊢B are proved. In addition, it is shown how the sequent systems for ⊢B can be extended to cut-free sequent calculi for Odintsov’s LB, which is an extension of ⊢B by adding classical implication and negation connectives.