Supervenience among classes of relations

This paper extends the definition of strong supervenience to cover classes of relations of any adicity, including transworld relations. It motivates that project by showing that not all interesting supervenience claims involving relations are global supervenience claims. The proposed definition has five welcome features: it reduces to the familiar definition in the special case where the classes contain only monadic properties; it equips supervenience with the expected formal properties, such as transitivity and monotonicity; it entails that a relation supervenes on its converse; it classifies certain paradigms correctly; it makes distinctions even in the realm of the non-contingent, as witnessed by the fact that identity does not supervene on any class of relations. Finally, the paper applies the defined concept, and the related concept of orthogonality, to the study of internal and external relations

Towards concept analysis in categories: limit inferior as algebra, limit superior as coalgebra

While computer programs and logical theories begin by declaring the concepts of interest, be it as data types or as predicates, network computation does not allow such global declarations, and requires *concept mining* and *concept analysis* to extract shared semantics for different network nodes. Powerful semantic analysis systems have been the drivers of nearly all paradigm shifts on the web. In categorical terms, most of them can be described as bicompletions of enriched matrices, generalizing the Dedekind-MacNeille-style completions from posets to suitably enriched categories. Yet it has been well known for more than 40 years that ordinary categories themselves in general do not permit such completions. Armed with this new semantical view of Dedekind-MacNeille completions, and of matrix bicompletions, we take another look at this ancient mystery. It turns out that simple categorical versions of the *limit superior* and *limit inferior* operations characterize a general notion of Dedekind-MacNeille completion, that seems to be appropriate for ordinary categories, and boils down to the more familiar enriched versions when the limits inferior and superior coincide. This explains away the apparent gap among the completions of ordinary categories, and broadens the path towards categorical concept mining and analysis, opened in previous work.Comment: 22 pages, 5 figures and 9 diagram

Infinite vs. Singularity. Between Leibniz and Hegel

The aim of this paper is to reconsider the controversial problem of the relationship between the philosophy of Hegel and Leibniz. Beyond the thick curtain of historical references (which have been widely developed by scholars), it is in fact possible to assume some guideline concepts (i.e. those of \u2018singularity\u2019 and \u2018infinity\u2019) to reconstruct the deep theoretical influence which Leibniz played in Hegel\u2019s thought since the Jenaer Systementwurf of 1804/05

Quantity Tropes and Internal Relations

In this article, we present a new conception of internal relations between quantity tropes falling under determinates and determinables. We begin by providing a novel characterization of the necessary relations between these tropes as basic internal relations. The core ideas here are that the existence of the relata is sufficient for their being internally related, and that their being related does not require the existence of any specific entities distinct from the relata. We argue that quantity tropes are, as determinate particular natures, internally related by certain relations of proportion and order. By being determined by the nature of tropes, the relations of proportion and order remain invariant in conventional choice of unit for any quantity and give rise to natural divisions among tropes. As a consequence, tropes fall under distinct determinables and determinates. Our conception provides an accurate account of quantitative distances between tropes but avoids commitment to determinable universals. In this important respect, it compares favorably with the standard conception taking exact similarity and quantitative distances as primitive internal relations. Moreover, we argue for the superiority of our approach in comparison with two additional recent accounts of the similarity of quantity tropes

Semantic values in higher-order semantics

Recently, some philosophers have argued that we should take quantification of any (finite) order to be a legitimate and irreducible, sui generis kind of quantification. In particular, they hold that a semantic theory for higher-order quantification must itself be couched in higher-order terms. Øystein Linnebo has criticized such views on the grounds that they are committed to general claims about the semantic values of expressions that are by their own lights inexpressible. I show that Linnebo's objection rests on the assumption of a notion of semantic value or contribution which both applies to expressions of any order, and picks out, for each expression, an extra-linguistic correlate of that expression. I go on to argue that higher-orderists can plausibly reject this assumption, by means of a hierarchy of notions they can use to describe the extra-lingustic correlates of expressions of different orders