Who needs (to assume) Hume's principle?

Abstract

Neo-logicism uses definitions and Hume's Principle to derive arithmetic in second-order logic. This paper investigates how much arithmetic can be derived using definitions alone, without any additional principle such as Hume's.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Neo-Logicism and Its Logic.Panu Raatikainen - 2020 - History and Philosophy of Logic 41 (1):82-95.
A Logical Foundation of Arithmetic.Joongol Kim - 2015 - Studia Logica 103 (1):113-144.
The logic in logicism.Alexander Bird - 1997 - Dialogue 36 (2):341--60.
On finite hume.Fraser Macbride - 2000 - Philosophia Mathematica 8 (2):150-159.
Finitude and Hume's Principle.Richard G. Heck Jr - 1997 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (6):589 - 617.
Finitude and Hume’s Principle.Richard G. Heck - 1997 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (6):589-617.
Plural Ancestral Logic as the Logic of Arithmetic.Oliver Tatton-Brown - 2024 - Review of Symbolic Logic 17 (2):305-342.
Comparing Peano arithmetic, Basic Law V, and Hume’s Principle.Sean Walsh - 2012 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163 (11):1679-1709.
Aristotelian logic, axioms, and abstraction.Roy T. Cook - 2003 - Philosophia Mathematica 11 (2):195-202.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
987 (#21,492)

6 months
56 (#97,064)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations