Intension, designation, and extension (Q1076007): Difference between revisions
From MaRDI portal
Added link to MaRDI item. |
Set OpenAlex properties. |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Property / reviewed by | |||
Property / reviewed by: Louis F. Goble / rank | |||
Property / reviewed by | |||
Property / reviewed by: Louis F. Goble / rank | |||
Normal rank | |||
Property / MaRDI profile type | |||
Property / MaRDI profile type: MaRDI publication profile / rank | |||
Normal rank | |||
Property / full work available at URL | |||
Property / full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093870926 / rank | |||
Normal rank | |||
Property / OpenAlex ID | |||
Property / OpenAlex ID: W2009364778 / rank | |||
Normal rank |
Latest revision as of 18:25, 19 March 2024
scientific article
Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
---|---|---|---|
English | Intension, designation, and extension |
scientific article |
Statements
Intension, designation, and extension (English)
0 references
1985
0 references
This paper presents a semantical theory for free S5 in all finite types. It is a modal system which allows quantification over individuals, propositions, properties of individuals, properties of propositions, etc. without limit. As a free logic it does not presuppose that any individuals exist or that singular terms stand for anything. In this theory, statements A and B may express distinct propositions even when \(\square (A\equiv B)\) is true. The theory postulates one proposition, the Russell proposition, which is its own negation; nevertheless the system is consistent. (This is not proved, of course.) Unlike theories of Frege and Montague, in this account expressions may have not only intension and extension, but a middle category, designation. The intension of an expression determines its designation if it has one; the designation or a default determines its extension. A formula designates a proposition if anything, but it may not designate anything, and even if it does, that might not determine the truth-value (extension) of the formula. These, and other, semantical categories are defined within a framework of possible worlds and functions on them. Because of the richness of the system, no complete axiomatization of it is possible. The original purpose for developing this theory, and the richness of its language and the distinctions it draws, was to formalize Descartes' ontological argument for the existence of God. Although the formalization is not given here, or its evaluation, it is asserted that Descartes' argument is not valid.
0 references
semantical theory for free S5 in all finite types
0 references
Russell proposition
0 references
Descartes' ontological argument for the existence of God
0 references