Property Theories

Revised and reprinted; originally in Dov Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume IV. Kluwer 133-251. -- Two sorts of property theory are distinguished, those dealing with intensional contexts property abstracts (infinitive and gerundive phrases) and proposition abstracts (‘that’-clauses) and those dealing with predication (or instantiation) relations. The first is deemed to be epistemologically more primary, for “the argument from intensional logic” is perhaps the best argument for the existence of properties. This argument is presented in the course of discussing generality, quantifying-in, learnability, referential semantics, nominalism, conceptualism, realism, type-freedom, the first-order/higher-order controversy, names, indexicals, descriptions, Mates’ puzzle, and the paradox of analysis. Two first-order intensional logics are then formulated. Finally, fixed-point type-free theories of predication are discussed, especially their relation to the question whether properties may be identified with propositional functions

A Constructive Approach to Intensional Contexts : Remarks on the Metaphysics of Model Theory

The basic distinction between extensional and intensional contexts is one of different denotation conditions (truth conditions). This difference in denotation conditions has been related to a fundamental question of semantic theory, namely: what do expressions of natural 'language denote? Most authors assume that in ex tensional contexts expressions denote 'real objects.' Since the rules of substitutivity of identicals and existential generalization do not hold in intensional contexts (cf. section 1), they are thus forced to postulate that in intensional contexts expressions denote something else. Frege, for example, assumes a de notational ambiguity between 'Bedeutung' and 'Sinn', Russell between 'primary occurrences' and 'secondary occurrences', Quine between 'proper occurrences' and 'accidental occurrences', and Montague between 'extensions' and 'intensions

An efficient implementation of lazy functional programming languages based on the generalized intensional transformation

Αυτή η εργασία διερευνά θεωρητικά και πρακτικά ζητήματα της αλληλεπίδρασης μεταξύ (ευρέως γνωστών και νέων) τεχνικών μεταγλώττισης, όπως ο γενικευμένος νοηματικός μετασχηματισμός, ο μετασχηματισμός σε συναρτησιακά αντικείμενα, η ξεχωριστή μεταγλώττιση και η λάμβδα άρση. Ένας πειραματικός μεταγλωττιστής για τη γλώσσα Haskell (GIC), ο οποίος χρησιμοποιεί τις τεχνικές αυτές, δίνει τη δυνατότητα σε νέες ιδέες να υλοποιηθούν και να αξιολογηθούν μέσα σε ένα πρακτικό πλαίσιο. Ως μέρος αυτής της δουλειάς πραγματοποιήθηκαν διάφορες προσθήκες και αλλαγές στο μεταγλωττιστή, είτε προκειμένου να γίνει ο μεταγλωττιστής πληρέστερος είτε προκειμένου να βελτιωθεί ο τελικός κώδικας που παράγεται από το LAR back-end του μεταγλωττιστή.This dissertation investigates theoretical and practical issues of the integration between (well-known and novel) compilation techniques, such as the generalized intensional transformation, defunctionalization, separate compilation, and lambda lifting. An experimental Haskell compiler (GIC), which incorporates these techniques, serves as a workbench allowing ideas to be demonstrated and evaluated in a practical context. Within the scope of this work, several additions and changes were made to the compiler either towards enchancing the tool’s robustness or towards the optimization of the code generated by the compiler’s LAR back-end

If structured propositions are logical procedures then how are procedures individuated?

This paper deals with two issues. First, it identifies structured propositions with logical procedures. Second, it considers various rigorous definitions of the granularity of procedures, hence also of structured propositions, and comes out in favour of one of them. As for the first point, structured propositions are explicated as algorithmically structured procedures. I show that these procedures are structured wholes that are assigned to expressions as their meanings, and their constituents are sub-procedures occurring in executed mode (as opposed to displayed mode). Moreover, procedures are not mere aggregates of their parts; rather, procedural constituents mutually interact. As for the second point, there is no universal criterion of the structural isomorphism of meanings, hence of co-hyperintensionality, hence of synonymy for every kind of language. The positive result I present is an ordered set of rigorously defined criteria of fine-grained individuation in terms of the structure of procedures. Hence procedural semantics provides a solution to the problem of the granularity of co-hyperintensionality