On Leśniewski’s Characteristica Universalis

Leśniewski's systems deviate greatly from standard logic in some basic features. The deviant aspects are rather well known, and often cited among the reasons why Leśniewski's work enjoys little recognition. This paper is an attempt to explain why those aspects should be there at all. Leśniewski built his systems inspired by a dream close to Leibniz's characteristica universalis: a perfect system of deductive theories encoding our knowledge of the world, based on a perfect language. My main claim is that Leśniewski built his characteristica universalis following the conditions of de Jong and Betti's Classical Model of Science (2008) to an astounding degree. While showing this I give an overview of the architecture of Leśniewski's systems and of their fundamental characteristics. I suggest among others that the aesthetic constraints Leśniewski put on axioms and primitive terms have epistemological relevance. © The Author(s) 2008

A Monadic Second-Order Version of Tarski’s Geometry of Solids

In this paper, we are concerned with the development of a general set theory using the single axiom version of Leśniewski’s mereology. The specification of mereology, and further of Tarski’s geometry of solids will rely on the Calculus of Inductive Constructions (CIC). In the first part, we provide a specification of Leśniewski’s mereology as a model for an atomless Boolean algebra using Clay’s ideas. In the second part, we interpret Leśniewski’s mereology in monadic second-order logic using names and develop a full version of mereology referred to as CIC-based Monadic Mereology (λ-MM) allowing an expressive theory while involving only two axioms. In the third part, we propose a modeling of Tarski’s solid geometry relying on λ-MM. It is intended to serve as a basis for spatial reasoning. All parts have been proved using a translation in type theory

Potential infinity, abstraction principles and arithmetic (Leniewski Style)

This paper starts with an explanation of how the logicist research program can be approached within the framework of Leśniewski’s systems. One nice feature of the system is that Hume’s Principle is derivable in it from an explicit definition of natural numbers. I generalize this result to show that all predicative abstraction principles corresponding to second-level relations, which are provably equivalence relations, are provable. However, the system fails, despite being much neater than the construction of Principia Mathematica (PM). One of the key reasons is that, just as in the case of the system of PM, without the assumption that infinitely many objects exist, (renderings of) most of the standard axioms of Peano Arithmetic are not derivable in the system. I prove that introducing modal quantifiers meant to capture the intuitions behind potential infinity results in the (renderings of) axioms of Peano Arithmetic (PA) being valid in all relational models (i.e. Kripke-style models, to be defined later on) of the extended language. The second, historical part of the paper contains a user-friendly description of Leśniewski’s own arithmetic and a brief investigation into its properties

A non reductionist logicism with explicit definitions

This paper introduces and examines the logicist construction of Peano Arithmetic that can be performed into Leśniewski’s logical calculus of names called Ontology. Against neo-Fregeans, it is argued that a logicist program cannot be based on implicit definitions of the mathematical concepts. Using only explicit definitions, the construction to be presented here constitutes a real reduction of arithmetic to Leśniewski’s logic with the addition of an axiom of infinity. I argue however that such a program is not reductionist, for it only provides what I will call a picture of arithmetic, that is to say a specific interpretation of arithmetic in which purely logical entities play the role of natural numbers. The reduction does not show that arithmetic is simply a part of logic. The process is not of ontological significance, for numbers are not shown to be logical entities. This neo-logicist program nevertheless shows the existence of a purely analytical route to the knowledge of arithmetical laws

On Tarski’s Foundations of the Geometry of Solids

The paper [Tarski: Les fondements de la géométrie des corps, Annales de la Société Polonaise de Mathématiques, pp. 29-34, 1929] is in many ways remarkable. We address three historico- philosophical issues that force themselves upon the reader. First we argue that in this paper Tarski did not live up to his own methodological ideals, but displayed instead a much more pragmatic approach. Second we show that Leśniewski's philosophy and systems do not play the significant role that one may be tempted to assign to them at first glance. Especially the role of background logic must be at least partially allocated to Russell's systems of Principia mathematica. This analysis leads us, third, to a threefold distinction of the technical ways in which the domain of discourse comes to be embodied in a theory. Having all of this in place, we discuss why we have to reject the argument in [Gruszczyński and Pietruszczak: Full development of Tarski's Geometry of Solids, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 4 (2008), no. 4, pp. 481-540] according to which Tarski has made a certain mistake. © 2012 Association for Symbolic Logic

Some non-standard interpretations of the axiomatic basis of Leśniewski’s Ontology

We propose an intuitive understanding of the statement: ‘an axiom (or: an axiomatic basis) determines the meaning of the only specific constant occurring in it.’ We introduce some basic semantics for functors of the category s/n,n of Lesniewski’s Ontology. Using these results we prove that the popular claim that the axioms of Ontology determine the meaning of the primitive constants is false

Pieces of a Theory

A survey of theories of part, whole and dependence from Aristotle to the Gestalt psychologists, with special attention to Husserl’s Third Logical Investigation “On the Theory of Parts and Wholes”

Some non-standard interpretations of the axiomatic basis of Leśniewski’s Ontology

We propose an intuitive understanding of the statement: ‘an axiom (or: an axiomatic basis) determines the meaning of the only specific constant occurring in it.’ We introduce some basic semantics for functors of the category s/n,n of Lesniewski’s Ontology. Using these results we prove that the popular claim that the axioms of Ontology determine the meaning of the primitive constants is false