Fraenkel–Carnap Questions for Equivalence Relations

An equivalence is a binary relational system A = (A,ϱA) where ϱA is an equivalence relation on A. A simple expansion of an equivalence is a system of the form (Aa1…an) were A is an equivalence and a1,…,an are members of A. It is shown that the Fraenkel-Carnap question when restricted to the class of equivalences or to the class of simple expansions of equivalences has a positive answer: that the complete second-order theory of such a system is categorical, if it is finitely axiomatizable

Fraenkel–Carnap Questions for Equivalence Relations

An equivalence is a binary relational system A = (A,ϱA) where ϱA is an equivalence relation on A. A simple expansion of an equivalence is a system of the form (Aa1…an) were A is an equivalence and a1,…,an are members of A. It is shown that the Fraenkel-Carnap question when restricted to the class of equivalences or to the class of simple expansions of equivalences has a positive answer: that the complete second-order theory of such a system is categorical, if it is finitely axiomatizable

Hyperintensional Ω-Logic

This essay examines the philosophical significance of $\Omega$-logic in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with choice (ZFC). The categorical duality between coalgebra and algebra permits Boolean-valued algebraic models of ZFC to be interpreted as coalgebras. The hyperintensional profile of $\Omega$-logical validity can then be countenanced within a coalgebraic logic. I argue that the philosophical significance of the foregoing is two-fold. First, because the epistemic and modal and hyperintensional profiles of $\Omega$-logical validity correspond to those of second-order logical consequence, $\Omega$-logical validity is genuinely logical. Second, the foregoing provides a hyperintensional account of the interpretation of mathematical and metamathematical vocabulary

Facets and Levels of Mathematical Abstraction

International audienceMathematical abstraction is the process of considering and manipulating operations, rules, methods and concepts divested from their reference to real world phenomena and circumstances, and also deprived from the content connected to particular applications. There is no one single way of performing mathematical abstraction. The term "abstraction" does not name a unique procedure but a general process, which goes many ways that are mostly simultaneous and intertwined ; in particular, the process does not amount only to logical subsumption. I will consider comparatively how philosophers consider abstraction and how mathematicians perform it, with the aim to bring to light the fundamental thinking processes at play, and to illustrate by significant examples how much intricate and multi-leveled may be the combination of typical mathematical techniques which include axiomatic method, invarianceprinciples, equivalence relations and functional correspondences.L'abstraction mathématique consiste en la considération et la manipulation d'opérations, règles et concepts indépendamment du contenu dont les nantissent des applications particulières et du rapport qu'ils peuvent avoir avec les phénomènes et les circonstances du monde réel. L'abstraction mathématique emprunte diverses voies. Le terme " abstraction " ne désigne pasune procédure unique, mais un processus général où s'entrecroisent divers procédés employés successivement ou simultanément. En particulier, l'abstraction mathématique ne se réduit pas à la subsomption logique. Je vais étudier comparativement en quels termes les philosophes expliquent l'abstraction et par quels moyens les mathématiciens la mettent en oeuvre. Je voudrais parlà mettre en lumière les principaux processus de pensée en jeu et illustrer par des exemples divers niveaux d'intrication de techniques mathématiques récurrentes, qui incluent notamment la méthode axiomatique, les principes d'invariance, les relations d'équivalence et les correspondances fonctionnelles

Infinitesimal Probabilities

Non-Archimedean probability functions allow us to combine regularity with perfect additivity. We discuss the philosophical motivation for a particular choice of axioms for a non-Archimedean probability theory and answer some philosophical objections that have been raised against infinitesimal probabilities in general

Anti-Foundational Categorical Structuralism

The aim of this dissertation is to outline and defend the view here dubbed “anti-foundational categorical structuralism” (henceforth AFCS). The program put forth is intended to provide an answer the question “what is mathematics?”. The answer here on offer adopts the structuralist view of mathematics, in that mathematics is taken to be “the science of structure” expressed in the language of category theory, which is argued to accurately capture the notion of a “structural property”. In characterizing mathematical theorems as both conditional and schematic in form, the program is forced to give up claims to securing the truth of its theorems, as well as give up a semantics which involves reference to special, distinguished “mathematical objects”, or which involves quantification over a fixed domain of such objects. One who wishes—contrary to the AFCS view—to inject mathematics with a “standard” semantics, and to provide a secure epistemic foundation for the theorems of mathematics, in short, one who wishes for a foundation for mathematics, will surely find this view lacking. However, I argue that a satisfactory development of the structuralist view, couched in the language of category theory, accurately represents our best understanding of the content of mathematical theorems and thereby obviates the need for any foundational program

Les enjeux de la controverse Frege-Hilbert sur les fondements de la géométrie : une étude philosophique sur la logique et les mathématiques

L’auteur entreprend dans ce mémoire de faire une présentation des débats axiologiques de philosophie de la logique sous-jacents à la controverse opposant Frege et Hilbert sur les fondements de la géométrie. Contre le parti pris philosophique selon lequel la logique est une discipline achevée, l’auteur entreprend une mise en contexte des positions de Frege et Hilbert afin de montrer que dans leur conception de la logique se trouvent des paradigmes incommensurables, résultant de l’influence de traditions philosophiques et scientifiques diverses. Dans cette perspective, Frege est le défenseur de la vision traditionnelle de la logique comme medium universel de la science, tel qu’incarnée dans la géométrie euclidienne. La logique symbolique de Frege est ainsi vue comme la mise en oeuvre de moyens raffinés pour lutter contre la (( perversion des sciences )) ayant lieu au 19ième siècle et pour la défense de la vision traditionnelle de la science. à l’opposé, l’approche métathéorique de Hilbert représente la conception moderne dite algébrique de la logique telle que développée au 19ième sous l’influence des métamathématiques, et certains rapprochements avec les conceptions (( model-theoretic )) et catégorielles de la logique viennent appuyer cette thèse.This memoir presents some axiological debates of philosophy of logic underlying the Frege-Hilbert controversy on the foundations of geometry. Against the philosophical bias according to which logic is an achieved discipline, a contextualized presentation of the respective positions of Frege and Hilbert is done in order to show that incommensurable paradigms are found in their view of logic, that is due to the influence of various philosophical and scientific traditions. From this standpoint, Frege is the defender of the traditionalist view of logic as the universal medium of science, as embodied in Euclidean geometry. In this perspective, Frege’s symbolic logic is seen as the achievement of a refined means to counter the 19th-century perversion of science with the purpose of defending the traditional conception of the role of science. On the other hand, Hilbert’s metatheoretical approach represents the so-called algebraic modern conception of logic as developed in the 19th century under the influence of metamathematics. Following this, parallels between Hilbert’s approach and the model-theoretical and categorical conceptions of logic are drawn to show their proximity

Epistemic Modality, Mind, and Mathematics

This book concerns the foundations of epistemic modality. I examine the nature of epistemic modality, when the modal operator is interpreted as concerning both apriority and conceivability, as well as states of knowledge and belief. The book demonstrates how epistemic modality relates to the computational theory of mind; metaphysical modality; the types of mathematical modality; to the epistemic status of large cardinal axioms, undecidable propositions, and abstraction principles in the philosophy of mathematics; to the modal profile of rational intuition; and to the types of intention, when the latter is interpreted as a modal mental state. Chapter \textbf{2} argues for a novel type of expressivism based on the duality between the categories of coalgebras and algebras, and argues that the duality permits of the reconciliation between modal cognitivism and modal expressivism. Chapter \textbf{3} provides an abstraction principle for epistemic intensions. Chapter \textbf{4} advances a topic-sensitive two-dimensional truthmaker semantics, and provides three novel interpretations of the framework along with the epistemic and metasemantic. Chapter \textbf{5} applies the fixed points of the modal $\mu$-calculus in order to account for the iteration of epistemic states, by contrast to availing of modal axiom 4 (i.e. the KK principle). Chapter \textbf{6} advances a solution to the Julius Caesar problem based on Fine's "criterial" identity conditions which incorporate conditions on essentiality and grounding. Chapter \textbf{7} provides a ground-theoretic regimentation of the proposals in the metaphysics of consciousness and examines its bearing on the two-dimensional conceivability argument against physicalism. The topic-sensitive epistemic two-dimensional truthmaker semantics developed in chapter \textbf{4} is availed of in order for epistemic states to be a guide to metaphysical states in the hyperintensional setting. Chapter \textbf{8} examines the modal commitments of abstractionism, in particular necessitism, and epistemic modality and the epistemology of abstraction. Chapter \textbf{9} examines the modal profile of $\Omega$-logic in set theory. Chapter \textbf{10} examines the interaction between epistemic two-dimensional truthmaker semantics, epistemic set theory, and absolute decidability. Chapter \textbf{11} avails of modal coalgebraic automata to interpret the defining properties of indefinite extensibility, and avails of epistemic two-dimensional semantics in order to account for the interaction of the interpretational and objective modalities thereof. The hyperintensional, topic-sensitive epistemic two-dimensional truthmaker semantics developed in chapter \textbf{2} is applied in chapters \textbf{7}, \textbf{8}, \textbf{10}, and \textbf{11}. Chapter \textbf{12} provides a modal logic for rational intuition and provides four models of hyperintensional semantics. Chapter \textbf{13} examines modal responses to the alethic paradoxes. Chapter \textbf{14} examines, finally, the modal semantics for the different types of intention and the relation of the latter to evidential decision theory