We investigate the extension of monadic second-order logic of order with cardinality quantifiers "there exists uncountably many sets such that... " and "there exists continuum many sets such that... ". We prove that over the class of countable linear orders the two quantifiers are equivalent and can be effectively and uniformly eliminated. Weaker or partial elimination results are obtained for certain wider classes of chains. In particular, we show that over the class of ordinals the uncountability quantifier (...) can be effectively and uniformly eliminated. Our argument makes use of Shelah's composition method and Ramsey-like theorem for dense linear orders. (shrink)

We generalize Shelah's analysis of cardinality quantifiers for a superstable theory from Chapter V of Classification Theory and the Number of Nonisomorphic Models. We start with a set of bounds for the cardinality of each formula in some general invariant family of formulas in a superstable theory (in Classification Theory, a uniform family of formulas is considered) and find a set of derived bounds for all formulas. The set of derived bounds is sharp: up to a technical (...) restriction, every model that satisfies the original bounds has a sufficiently saturated elementary extension that satisfies the original bounds and such that for each formula the set of its realizations in the extension has arbitrarily large cardinality below the corresponding derived bound of the formula. (shrink)

We show that the predicate “x is the power set of y” is ‐definable, if V = L[E] is an extender model constructed from a coherent sequences of extenders, provided that there is no inner model with a Woodin cardinal. Here is a predicate true of just the infinite cardinals. From this we conclude: the validities of second order logic are reducible to, the set of validities of the Härtig quantifier logic. Further we show that if no L[E] model has (...) a cardinal strong up to one of its ℵ‐fixed points, and, the Löwenheim number of this logic, is less than the least weakly inaccessible δ, then (i) is a limit of measurable cardinals of K, and (ii) the Weak Covering Lemma holds at δ. (shrink)

This paper presents a formalization of first-order arithmetic characterizing the natural numbers as abstracta of the equinumerosity relation. The formalization turns on the interaction of a nonstandard cardinality quantifier with an abstraction operator assigning objects to predicates. The project draws its philosophical motivation from a nonreductionist conception of logicism, a deflationary view of abstraction, and an approach to formal arithmetic that emphasizes the cardinal properties of the natural numbers over the structural ones.

Inquisitive first-order logic, InqBQ, is a system which extends classical first-order logic with formulas expressing questions. From a mathematical point of view, formulas in this logic express properties of sets of relational structures. This paper makes two contributions to the study of this logic. First, we describe an Ehrenfeucht–Fraïssé game for InqBQ and show that it characterizes the distinguishing power of the logic. Second, we use the game to study cardinality quantifiers in the inquisitive setting. That is, we (...) study what statements and questions can be expressed in InqBQ about the number of individuals satisfying a given predicate. As special cases, we show that several variants of the question how many individuals satisfy α(x) are not expressible in InqBQ, both in the general case and in restriction to finite models. (shrink)

We succeed to say something on the identities of when μ > θ > cf with μ strong limit θ-compact or even μ is limit of compact cardinals.

In the semantics of natural language, quantification may have received more attention than any other subject, and one of the main topics in psychological studies on deductive reasoning is syllogistic inference, which is just a restricted form of reasoning with quantifiers. But thus far the semantical and psychological enterprises have remained disconnected. This paper aims to show how our understanding of syllogistic reasoning may benefit from semantical research on quantification. I present a very simple logic that pivots on the (...) monotonicity properties of quantified statements - properties that are known to be crucial not only to quantification but to a much wider range of semantical phenomena. This logic is shown to account for the experimental evidence available in the literature as well as for the data from a new experiment with cardinal quantifiers ("at least n" and "at most n"), which cannot be explained by any other theory of syllogistic reasoning. (shrink)

Following Henkin's discovery of partially-ordered (branching) quantification (POQ) with standard quantifiers in 1959, philosophers of language have attempted to extend his definition to POQ with generalized quantifiers. In this paper I propose a general definition of POQ with 1-place generalized quantifiers of the simplest kind: namely, predicative, or "cardinality" quantifiers, e.g., "most", "few", "finitely many", "exactly α", where α is any cardinal, etc. The definition is obtained in a series of generalizations, extending the original, Henkin (...) definition first to a general definition of monotone-increasing (M↑) POQ and then to a general definition of generalized POQ, regardless of monotonicity. The extension is based on (i) Barwise's 1979 analysis of the basic case of M↑ POQ and (ii) my 1990 analysis of the basic case of generalized POQ. POQ is a non-compositional Ist-order structure, hence the problem of extending the definition of the basic case to a general definition is not trivial. The paper concludes with a sample of applications to natural and mathematical languages. (shrink)

Following Henkin’s discovery of partially-ordered (branching) quantification (POQ) with standard quantifiers in 1959, philosophers of language have attempted to extend his definition to POQ with generalized quantifiers. In this paper I propose a general definition of POQ with 1-place generalized quantifiers of the simplest kind: namely, predicative, or “cardinality” quantifiers, e.g., “most”, “few”, “finitely many”, “exactly α ”, where α is any cardinal, etc. The definition is obtained in a series of generalizations, extending the original, (...) Henkin definition first to a general definition of monotone-increasing (M↑) POQ and then to a general definition of generalized POQ, regardless of monotonicity. The extension is based on (i) Barwise’s 1979 analysis of the basic case of M↑ POQ and (ii) my 1990 analysis of the basic case of generalized POQ. POQ is a non-compositional 1st-order structure, hence the problem of extending the definition of the basic case to a general definition is not trivial. The paper concludes with a sample of applications to natural and mathematical languages. (shrink)

In the topological semantics, quantified intuitionistic logic, QH, is known to be strongly complete not only for the class of all topological spaces but also for some particular topological spaces — for example, for the irrational line, ${\Bbb P}$, and for the rational line, ${\Bbb Q}$, in each case with a constant countable domain for the quantifiers. Each of ${\Bbb P}$ and ${\Bbb Q}$ is a separable zero-dimensional dense-in-itself metrizable space. The main result of the current article generalizes these (...) known results: QH is strongly complete for any zero-dimensional dense-in-itself metrizable space with a constant domain of cardinality ≤ the space’s weight; consequently, QH is strongly complete for any separable zero-dimensional dense-in-itself metrizable space with a constant countable domain. We also prove a result that follows from earlier work of Moerdijk: if we allow varying domains for the quantifiers, then QH is strongly complete for any dense-in-itself metrizable space with countable domains. (shrink)

Vectorization of a class of structures is a natural notion in finite model theory. Roughly speaking, vectorizations allow tuples to be treated similarly to elements of structures. The importance of vectorizations is highlighted by the fact that if the complexity class PTIME corresponds to a logic with reasonable syntax, then it corresponds to a logic generated via vectorizations by a single generalized quantifier (Dawar in J Log Comput 5(2):213–226, 1995). It is somewhat surprising, then, that there have been few systematic (...) studies of the expressive power of vectorizations of various quantifiers. In the present paper, we consider the simplest case: the cardinality quantifiers C S. We show that, in general, the expressive power of the vectorized quantifier logic $${{\rm FO}(\{{\mathsf C}_S^{(n)}\, | \, n \in \mathbb{Z}_+\})}$$ is much greater than the expressive power of the non-vectorized logic FO(C S ). (shrink)

There are three main types of number used in modern, industrialized societies. Cardinals count sets (e.g., people, objects) and quantify elements of conventional scales (e.g., money, distance), ordinals index positions in ordered sequences (e.g., years, pages), and nominals serve as unique identifiers (e.g., telephone numbers, player numbers). Many studies that have cited number frequencies in support of claims about numerical cognition and mathematical cognition hinge on the assumption that most numbers analyzed are cardinal. This paper is the first to investigate (...) the relative frequencies of different number types, presenting a corpus analysis of morphologically unmarked numbers (not, e.g., “eighth” or “21st”) in which we manually annotated 3,600 concordances in the Corpus of Contemporary American English. Overall, cardinals are dominant—both pure cardinals (sets) and measurements (scales)—except in the range 1,000–10,000, which is dominated by ordinal years, like 1996 and 2004. Ordinals occur less often overall, and nominals even less so. Only for cardinals do round numbers, associated with approximation, dominate overall and increase with magnitude. In comparison with other registers, academic writing contains a lower proportion of measurements as well as a higher proportion of ordinals and, to some extent, nominals. In writing, pure cardinals and measurements are usually represented as number words, but measurements—especially larger, unround ones—are more likely to be numerals. Ordinals and nominals are mostly represented as numerals. Altogether, this paper reveals how numbers are used in American English, establishing an initial baseline for any analyses of number frequencies and shedding new light on the cognitive and psychological study of number. (shrink)

We study some large cardinals in terms of reflection, establishing new connections between the model-theoretic and the set-theoretic approaches.

This paper proposes a formalization of the class of sentences quantified by most, which is also interpreted as proportion of or majority of depending on the domain of discourse. We consider sentences of the form “Most A are B”, where A and B are plural nouns and the interpretations of A and B are infinite subsets of \. There are two widely used semantics for Most A are B: \ > C \) and \ > \dfrac{C}{2} \), where C denotes (...) the cardinality of a given finite set X. Although is more descriptive than, it also produces a considerable amount of insensitivity for certain sets. Since the quantifier most has a solid cardinal behaviour under the interpretation majority and has a slightly more statistical behaviour under the interpretation proportional of, we consider an alternative approach in deciding quantity-related statements regarding infinite sets. For this we introduce a new semantics using natural density for sentences in which interpretations of their nouns are infinite subsets of \, along with a list of the axiomatization of the concept of natural density. In other words, we take the standard definition of the semantics of most but define it as applying to finite approximations of infinite sets computed to the limit. (shrink)

THERE IS GREAT MOTIVATION WITHIN FREGE'S THEORY TO\nCONSTRUE THE CARDINAL NUMBERS AS QUANTIFIERS, WHICH ARE\nHIGHER LEVEL CONCEPTS. BUT FREGE ARGUED THAT THE CARDINAL\nNUMBERS ARE OBJECTS, NOT CONCEPTS, AND DEFINED THEM\nACCORDINGLY. MOREOVER, FREGE'S HIERARCHY OF CONCEPTS\nPREVENTED HIM FROM CONSTRUING THE NUMBERS AS CONCEPTS. MY\nPURPOSE IS TO BRING OUT THE QUANTIFICATIONAL NATURE OF THE\nNUMBERS IN THE FACE OF THESE OBSTACLES. THE PAPER PRESSES\nTHE QUANTIFICATIONAL VIEW ONTO FREGE'S CONCEPT OF NUMBER AS\nIT TRACES ITS DEVELOPMENT FROM THE "BEGRIFFSSCHRIFT",\nTHROUGH THE 1880S, INTO ITS FORMALIZATION (...) IN THE\n"GRUNDGESETZE". THE THEORY YIELDS SURPRISINGLY EASILY UNDER\nPRESSURE FROM THE QUANTIFICATIONAL VIEW, AND ONE\nSYMPATHETIC WITH THAT VIEW MAY TAKE ENCOURAGEMENT FROM THE\nFACT THAT IT WAS FREGE'S HIERARCHY OF CONCEPTS, NOT HIS\nACTUAL ARGUMENTS, THAT PREVENTED HIS CONSTRUING NUMBERS AS\nQUANTIFIERS. (shrink)

We consider a class of Lindström extensions of first-order logic which are susceptible to a natural Skolemization procedure. In these logics Ehrenfeucht Mostowski (EM) functors for theories with arbitrarily large models can be obtained under suitable restrictions. Characteristic dependencies between algebraic properties of the quantifiers and the maximal domains of EM functors are investigated.Results are applied to Magidor Malitz logic,L(Q <ω), showing e.g. its Hanf number to be equal to ℶω(ℵ1) in the countably compact case. Using results of Baumgartner, (...) the maximal number of isomorphism types of linearly ordered models of regular cardinality is shown to be achieved for theories that admit an EM functor on a typically restricted domain. (shrink)

Fix a cardinal κ. We can ask the question: what kind of a logic L is needed to characterize all models of cardinality κ up to isomorphism by their L-theories? In other words: for which logics L it is true that if any models A and B of cardinality κ satisfy the same L-theory then they are isomorphic?It is always possible to characterize models of cardinality κ by their Lκ+,κ+-theories, but we are interested in finding a “small” (...) logic L, i.e., the sentences of L are hereditarily of smaller cardinality than κ. For any cardinal κ it is independent of ZFC whether any such small definable logic L exists. If it exists it can be second order logic for κ=ω and fourth order logic or certain infinitary second order logic Lκ,ω source for uncountable κ. All models of cardinality κ can always be characterized by their theories in a small logic with generalized quantifiers, but the logic may be not definable in the language of set theory. Our work continues and extends the work of Ajtai [Miklos Ajtai, Isomorphism and higher order equivalence, Ann. Math. Logic 16 181–203]. (shrink)

We show that assuming modest large cardinals, there is a definable class of ordinals, closed and unbounded beneath every uncountable cardinal, so that for any closed and unbounded subclasses $P, Q, {\langle L[P],\in,P \rangle }$ and ${\langle L[Q],\in,Q \rangle }$ possess the same reals, satisfy the Generalised Continuum Hypothesis, and moreover are elementarily equivalent. Examples of such P are Card, the class of uncountable cardinals, I the uniform indiscernibles, or for any n the class $C^{n}{=_{{\operatorname {df}}}}\{ \lambda \, | \, (...) V_{\lambda } \prec _{{\Sigma }_{n}}V\}$ ; moreover the theory of such models is invariant under ZFC-preserving extensions. They also all have a rich structure satisfying many of the usual combinatorial principles and a definable wellorder of the reals. The inner model constructed using definability in the language augmented by the Härtig quantifier is thus also characterized. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. After the pioneering work of Mostowski [29] and Lindström [23] it was Jon Barwise's papers [2] and [3] that brought abstract model theory and generalized quantifiers to the attention of logicians in the early seventies. These papers were greeted with enthusiasm at the prospect that model theory could be developed by introducing a multitude of extensions of first order logic, and by proving abstract results about relationships holding between properties of these logics. Examples of such properties areκ-compactness.Any (...) set of sentences of cardinality ≤ κ, every finite subset of which has a model, has itself a model.Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down toκ.If a sentence of the logic has a model, it has a model of cardinality at most κ.Interpolation Property.If ϕ and ψ are sentences such that ⊨ ϕ → Ψ, then there is θ such that ⊨ ϕ → θ, ⊨ θ → Ψ and the vocabulary of θ is the intersection of the vocabularies of ϕ and Ψ.Lindstrom's famous theorem characterized first order logic as the maximal ℵ0-compact logic with Downward Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down to ℵ0. With his new concept of absolute logics Barwise was able to get similar characterizations of infinitary languagesLκω. But hopes were quickly frustrated by difficulties arising left and right, and other areas of model theory came into focus, mainly stability theory. No new characterizations of logics comparable to the early characterization of first order logic given by Lindström and of infinitary logic by Barwise emerged. What was first called soft model theory turned out to be as hard as hard model theory. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. After the pioneering work of Mostowski [29] and Lindström [23] it was Jon Barwise's papers [2] and [3] that brought abstract model theory and generalized quantifiers to the attention of logicians in the early seventies. These papers were greeted with enthusiasm at the prospect that model theory could be developed by introducing a multitude of extensions of first order logic, and by proving abstract results about relationships holding between properties of these logics. Examples of such properties areκ-compactness.Any (...) set of sentences of cardinality ≤ κ, every finite subset of which has a model, has itself a model.Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down toκ.If a sentence of the logic has a model, it has a model of cardinality at most κ.Interpolation Property.If ϕ and ψ are sentences such that ⊨ ϕ → Ψ, then there is θ such that ⊨ ϕ → θ, ⊨ θ → Ψ and the vocabulary of θ is the intersection of the vocabularies of ϕ and Ψ.Lindstrom's famous theorem characterized first order logic as the maximal ℵ0-compact logic with Downward Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem down to ℵ0. With his new concept of absolute logics Barwise was able to get similar characterizations of infinitary languagesLκω. But hopes were quickly frustrated by difficulties arising left and right, and other areas of model theory came into focus, mainly stability theory. No new characterizations of logics comparable to the early characterization of first order logic given by Lindström and of infinitary logic by Barwise emerged. What was first called soft model theory turned out to be as hard as hard model theory. (shrink)

The following problem is studied: How large and how small can the Löwenheim and Hanf numbers of unbounded logics be in relation to the most common large cardinals? The main result is that the Löwenheim number of the logic with the Härtig-quantifier can be consistently put in between any two of the first weakly inaccessible, the first weakly Mahlo, the first weakly compact, the first Ramsey, the first measurable and the first supercompact cardinals.

Adding certain cardinality quantifiers into first-order language will give substantially more expressive languages. Thus, many mathematical concepts beyond first-order logic can be handled. Since basic modal logic can be seen as the bisimular invariant fragment of first-order logic on the level of models, it has no ability to handle modally these mathematical concepts beyond first-order logic. By adding modalities regarding the cardinalities of successor states, we can, in principle, investigate modal logics of all cardinalities. Thus ways of exploring (...) model-theoretic logics can be transferred to modal logics. (shrink)

Contemporary semantic description of logic is based on the ontology of all possible interpretations, an insufficiently clear metaphysical concept. In this article, logic is described as the internal organization of language. Logical concepts -- logical constants, logical truths, and logical consequence -- are defined using the internal syntactic and semantic structure of language. For a first-order language, it has been shown that its logical constants are connectives and a certain type of quantifiers for which the universal and existential (...) class='Hi'>quantifiers form a functionally complete set of quantifiers. Neither equality nor cardinal quantifiers belong to the logical constants of a first-order language. (shrink)

In this article, logical concepts are defined using the internal syntactic and semantic structure of language. For a first-order language, it has been shown that its logical constants are connectives and a certain type of quantifiers for which the universal and existential quantifiers form a functionally complete set of quantifiers. Neither equality nor cardinal quantifiers belong to the logical constants of a first-order language.

Adding certain cardinality quantifiers into first-order language will give substantially more expressive languages. Thus, many mathematical concepts beyond first-order logic can be handled. Since basic modal logic can be seen as the bisimular invariant fragment of first-order logic on the level of models, it has no ability to handle modally these mathematical concepts beyond first-order logic. By adding modalities regarding the cardinalities of successor states, we can, in principle, investigate modal logics of all cardinalities. Thus ways of exploring (...) model-theoretic logics can be transferred to modal logics. (shrink)

We define the concept of a logic frame , which extends the concept of an abstract logic by adding the concept of a syntax and an axiom system. In a recursive logic frame the syntax and the set of axioms are recursively coded. A recursive logic frame is called complete , if every finite consistent theory has a model. We show that for logic frames built from the cardinality quantifiers “there exists at least λ ” completeness always implies (...) .0-compactness. On the other hand we show that a recursively compact logic frame need not be ℵ0-compact. (shrink)

Ultrafilters play a significant role in model theory to characterize logics having various compactness and interpolation properties. They also provide a general method to construct extensions of first-order logic having these properties. A main result of this paper is that every class $\Omega $ of uniform ultrafilters generates a $\Delta $ -closed logic ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $. ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $ is $\omega $ -relatively compact iff some $D\in \Omega $ fails to be $\omega _1$ -complete iff ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $ does not (...) contain the quantifier “there are uncountably many.” If $\Omega $ is a set, or if it contains a countably incomplete ultrafilter, then ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $ is not generated by Mostowski cardinality quantifiers. Assuming $\neg 0^\sharp $ or $\neg L^{\mu }$, if $D\in \Omega $ is a uniform ultrafilter over a regular cardinal $\nu $, then every family $\Psi $ of formulas in ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $ with $|\Phi |\leq \nu $ satisfies the compactness theorem. In particular, if $\Omega $ is a proper class of uniform ultrafilters over regular cardinals, ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $ is compact. (shrink)

Discourse carries thin commitment to objects of a certain sort iff it says or implies that there are such objects. It carries a thick commitment to such objects iff an account of what determines truth-values for its sentences say or implies that there are such objects. This paper presents two model-theoretic semantics for mathematical discourse, one reflecting thick commitment to mathematical objects, the other reflecting only a thin commitment to them. According to the latter view, for example, the semantic role (...) of number-words is not designation but rather the encoding of cardinality-quantifiers. I also present some reasons for preferring this view. (shrink)

The logic L (Qu) extends first-order logic by a generalized form of counting quantifiers ("the number of elements satisfying... belongs to the set C"). This logic is investigated for structures with an injectively ω-automatic presentation. If first-order logic is extended by an infinity-quantifier, the resulting theory of any such structure is known to be decidable [6]. It is shown that, as in the case of automatic structures [21], also modulo-counting quantifiers as well as infinite cardinality quantifiers (...) ("there are χ many elements satisfying...") lead to decidable theories. For a structure of bounded degree with injective ω-automatic presentation, the fragment of L(Qu) that contains only effective quantifiers is shown to be decidable and an elementary algorithm for this decision is presented. Both assumptions (ω-automaticity and bounded degree) are necessary for this result to hold. (shrink)

Reasoning with quantifier expressions in natural language combines logical and arithmetical features, transcending strict divides between qualitative and quantitative. Our topic is this cooperation of styles as it occurs in common linguistic usage and its extension into the broader practice of natural language plus ‘grassroots mathematics’.We begin with a brief review of by changing the semantics of counting in natural ways. A first approach replaces cardinalities by abstract but well-motivated values of ‘mass’ or other mereological aggregating notions. A second approach (...) keeps the cardinalities but generalizes the meaning of counting to work in models that allow dependencies between variables.Finally, we return to our starting point in natural language, confronting the architecture of our formal systems with linguistic quantifier vocabulary and syntax, as well as with natural reasoning modules such as the monotonicity calculus. In addition to these encounters with formal semantics, we discuss the role of counting in semantic evaluation procedures for quantifier expressions and determine, for instance, which binary quantifiers are computable by finite ‘semantic automata’. We conclude with some general thoughts on yet further entanglements of logic and counting in formal systems, on rethinking the qualitative/quantitative divide, and on connecting our analysis to empirical findings in cognitive science. (shrink)

We show that, assuming the consistency of a supercompact cardinal, the first inaccessible cardinal can satisfy a strong form of a Löwenheim–Skolem–Tarski theorem for the equicardinality logic L, a logic introduced in [5] strictly between first order logic and second order logic. On the other hand we show that in the light of present day inner model technology, nothing short of a supercompact cardinal suffices for this result. In particular, we show that the Löwenheim–Skolem–Tarski theorem for the equicardinality logic at (...) κ implies the Singular Cardinals Hypothesis above κ as well as Projective Determinacy. (shrink)

Given a regular cardinal κ such that κ<κ=κ (e.g., if the generalized continuum hypothesis holds), we develop a proof system for classical infinitary logic that includes heterogeneous quantification (i.e., infinite alternating sequences of quantifiers) within the language Lκ+,κ, where there are conjunctions and disjunctions of at most κ many formulas and quantification (including the heterogeneous one) is applied to less than κ many variables. This type of quantification is interpreted in Set using the usual second-order formulation in terms of (...) strategies for games, and the axioms are based on a stronger variant of the axiom of determinacy for game semantics. With respect to this axiom system we prove the soundness and completeness theorem with respect to a class of set-valued structures that we call well determined. We also investigate intuitionistic systems with heterogeneous quantifiers for Lκ+,κ,κ (when only conjunctions of less than κ many formulas are allowed), and prove analogously a completeness theorem with respect to well-determined structures in categories in general, in κ-Grothendieck topoi in particular, and, when κ<κ=κ, also in Kripke models. Finally, we consider an extension of our system in which heterogeneous quantification with bounded quantifiers is expressible, and extend our completeness results to that case. (shrink)

There is now general agreement about the optionality of scalar implicatures: the pragmatic interpretation will be accessed depending on the context relative to which the utterance is interpreted. The question, then, is what makes a context upper- (vs. lower-) bounding. Neo-Gricean accounts should predict that contexts including factual information will enhance the rate of pragmatic interpretations. Post-Gricean accounts should predict that contexts including psychological attributions will enhance the rate of pragmatic interpretations. We tested two factors using the quantifier scale all, (...) some >: (1) the existence of factual information that facilitates the computation of pragmatic interpretations in the context (here, the cardinality of the domain of quantification) and (2) the fact that the context makes the difference between the semantic and the pragmatic interpretations of the target sentence relevant, involving psychological attributions to the speaker (here a question using all ). We did three experiments, all of which suggest that while cardinality information may be necessary to the computation of the pragmatic interpretation, it plays a minor role in triggering it; highlighting the contrast between the pragmatic and the semantic interpretations, while it is not necessary to the computation of the pragmatic interpretation, strongly mandates a pragmatic interpretation. These results favor Sperber and Wilson's ( 1995 ) post-Gricean account over Chierchia's ( 2013 ) neo-Gricean account. Overall, this suggests that highlighting the relevance of the pragmatic vs. semantic interpretations of the target sentence makes a context upper-bounding. Additionally, the results give a small advantage to the post-Gricean account. (shrink)

According to the so-called strong variant of Composition as Identity (CAI), the Principle of Indiscernibility of Identicals can be extended to composition, by resorting to broadly Fregean relativizations of cardinality ascriptions. In this paper we analyze various ways in which this relativization could be achieved. According to one broad variety of relativization, cardinality ascriptions are about objects, while concepts occupy an additional argument place. It should be possible to paraphrase the cardinality ascriptions in plural logic and, as (...) a consequence, relative counting requires the relativization either of quantifiers, or of identity, or of the is one of relation. However, some of these relativizations do not deliver the expected results, and others rely on problematic assumptions. In another broad variety of relativization, cardinality ascriptions are about concepts or sets. The most promising development of this approach is prima facie connected with a violation of the so-called Coreferentiality Constraint, according to which an identity statement is true only if its terms have the same referent. Moreover - even provided that the problem with coreferentiality can be fixed - the resulting analysis of cardinality ascriptions meets several difficulties. (shrink)

Let Mn♯ denote the minimal active iterable extender model which has n Woodin cardinals and contains all reals, if it exists, in which case we denote by Mn the class-sized model obtained by iterating the topmost measure of Mn class-many times. We characterize the sets of reals which are Σ1-definable from R over Mn, under the assumption that projective games on reals are determined:1. for even n, Σ1Mn=⅁RΠn+11;2. for odd n, Σ1Mn=⅁RΣn+11.This generalizes a theorem of Martin and Steel for L, (...) that is, the case n=0. As consequences of the proof, we see that determinacy of all projective games with moves in R is equivalent to the statement that Mn♯ exists for all n∈N, and that determinacy of all projective games of length ω2 with moves in N is equivalent to the statement that Mn♯ exists and satisfies AD for all n∈N. (shrink)

Cardinal number knowledge-understanding “two” refers to sets of two entities-is a critical piece of knowledge that predicts later mathematics achievement. Recent studies have shown that domain-general and domain-specific skills can influence children’s cardinal number learning. However, there has not yet been research investigating the influence of domain-specific quantifier knowledge on children’s cardinal number learning. The present study aimed to investigate the influence of domain-general and domain-specific skills on Mandarin Chinese-speaking children’s cardinal number learning after controlling for a number of family (...) background factors. Particular interest was paid to the question whether domain-specific quantifier knowledge was associated with cardinal number development. Specifically, we investigated 2–5-year-old Mandarin Chinese-speaking children’s understanding of cardinal number words as well as their general language, intelligence, approximate number system acuity, and knowledge of quantifiers. Children’s age, gender, parental education, and family income were also assessed and used as covariates. We found that domain-general abilities, including general language and intelligence, did not account for significant additional variance of cardinal number knowledge after controlling for the aforementioned covariates. We also found that domain-specific quantifier knowledge did not account for significant additional variance of cardinal number knowledge, whereas domain-specific ANS acuity accounted for significant additional variance of cardinal number knowledge, after controlling for the aforementioned covariates. In sum, the results suggest that domain-specific numerical skills seem to be more important for children’s development of cardinal number words than the more proximal domain-general abilities such as language abilities and intelligence. The results also highlight the significance of ANS acuity on children’s cardinal number word development. (shrink)

Oneanaphora (e.g.,this is a good one) has been used as a key diagnostic in syntactic analyses of the English noun phrase, and “one‐replacement” has also figured prominently in debates about the learnability of language. However, much of this work has been based on faulty premises, as a few perceptive researchers, including Ray Jackendoff, have made clear. Abandoning the view of anaphoricone(a‐one) as a form of syntactic replacement allows us to take a fresh look at various uses of the wordone. In (...) the present work, we investigate its use as a cardinal number (1‐one) in order to better understand its anaphoric use. Like all cardinal numbers, 1‐onecan only quantify an individuated entity and provides an indefinite reading by default. Owing to unique combinatoric properties, cardinal numbers defy consistent classification as determiners, quantifiers, adjectives, or nouns. Once the semantics and distribution of cardinal numbers, including 1‐one, are appreciated, many properties ofa‐onefollow with minimal stipulation. We claim that 1‐oneanda‐oneare distinct but very closely related lexemes. When 1‐oneappears without a noun (e.g.,Takeone), it is nearly indistinguishable froma‐one(e.g.,takeone)—the only differences being interpretive (1‐oneforegrounds its cardinality whilea‐onedoes not) and prosodic (presence versus absence of primary accent). While we ultimately argue that a family of constructions is required to describe the full range of syntactic contexts in whichoneappears, the proposed network accounts for properties ofa‐oneby allowing it to inherit most of its syntactic and interpretive constraints from its historical predecessor, 1‐one. (shrink)

We investigate iterating the construction of $C^{*}$, the L-like inner model constructed using first order logic augmented with the “cofinality $\omega $ ” quantifier. We first show that $\left (C^{*}\right )^{C^{*}}=C^{*}\ne L$ is equiconsistent with $\mathrm {ZFC}$, as well as having finite strictly decreasing sequences of iterated $C^{*}$ s. We then show that in models of the form $L[U]$ we get infinite decreasing sequences of length $\omega $, and that an inner model with a measurable cardinal is required for that.

This paper studies a family of monotonic extensions of first-order logic which we call modulated logics, constructed by extending classical logic through generalized quantifiers called modulated quantifiers. This approach offers a new regard to what we call flexible reasoning. A uniform treatment of modulated logics is given here, obtaining some general results in model theory. Besides reviewing the “Logic of Ultrafilters”, which formalizes inductive assertions of the kind “almost all”, two new monotonic logical systems are proposed here, the (...) “Logic of Many” and the “Logic of Plausibility”, that characterize assertions of the kind “many”, and “for a good number of”. Although the notion of simple majority (“more than half”) can be captured by means of a modulated quantifier semantically interpreted by cardinal measure on evidence sets, it is proven that this system, although sound, cannot be complete if checked against the intended model. This justifies the interest on a purely qualitative approach to this kind of quantification, what is guaranteed by interpreting the modulated quantifiers as notions of families of principal filters and reduced topologies, respectively. We prove that both systems are conservative extensions of classical logic that preserve important properties, such as soundness and completeness. Some additional perspectives connecting our approach to flexible reasoning through modulated logics to epistemology and social choice theory are also discussed. (shrink)

Leibniz's development of a "calculus universalis" stands and falls with his theory of negation. During the entire period of the elaboration of the algebra of concepts, L1, Leibniz had to struggle hard to grasp the difference between propositional and conceptual negation. Within the framework of syllogistic, this difference seems to disappear because 'Omne A non B' may be taken to be equivalent to ‘Omne A est non-B’. Within the "universal calculus", however, the informal quantifier expression 'omne' is to be dropped. (...) Accordingly, ‘A non est B' expresses only the propositional negation of ‘A est B' and is hence logically weaker than ‘A est non-B'. Besides Leibniz's cardinal error of confusing propositional and conceptual negation the following issues are dealt with in this paper: -"Aristotelian" vs. "Scholastic" Syllogistic; – Metalinguistic theory of the truth-predicate; -Individual-concepts vs. concepts in general. (shrink)

We consider the quantifier hierarchy of Takahashi [1972] and show how it gives rise to reflection theorems for some large cardinals in ZF, a new natural subtheory of Zermelo's set theory, a potentially useful new reduction of the consistency problem for Quine's NF, and a sharpening of another reduction of this problem due to Boffa.

By a pure modal logic of names we mean a quantifier-free formulation of such a logic which includes not only traditional categorical, but also modal categorical sentences with modalities de re and which is an extension of Propositional Logic. For categorical sentences we use two interpretations: a “natural” one; and Johnson and Thomason’s interpretation, which is suitable for some reconstructions of Aristotelian modal syllogistic :271–284, 1989; Thomason in J Philos Logic 22:111–128, 1993 and J Philos Logic 26:129–141, 1997. In both (...) cases we use Johnson-like models. We also analyze different kinds of versions of PMLN, for both general and singular names. We present complete tableau systems for the different versions of PMLN. These systems enable us to present some decidability methods. It yields “strong decidability” in the following sense: for every inference starting with a finite set of premises we can specify a finite number of steps to check whether it is logically valid. This method gives the upper bound of the cardinality of models needed for the examination of the validity of a given inference. (shrink)

We argue that certain modal questions raise serious problems for a modal metaphysics on which we are permitted to quantify unrestrictedly over all possibilia. In particular, we argue that, on reasonable assumptions, both David Lewis's modal realism and Timothy Williamson's necessitism are saddled with the remarkable conclusion that there is some cardinal number of the form ℵα such that there could not be more than ℵα-many angels in existence. In the last section, we make use of similar ideas to draw (...) a moral for a recent debate in meta-ontology. (shrink)

Psychologists debate whether mental attributes can be quantified or whether they admit only qualitative comparisons of more and less. Their disagreement is not merely terminological, for it bears upon the permissibility of various statistical techniques. This article contributes to the discussion in two stages. First it explains how temperature, which was originally a qualitative concept, came to occupy its position as an unquestionably quantitative concept (§§1–4). Specifically, it lays out the circumstances in which thermometers, which register quantitative (or cardinal) differences, (...) became distinguishable from thermoscopes, which register merely qualitative (or ordinal) differences. I argue that this distinction became possible thanks to the work of Joseph Black, ca. 1760. Second, the article contends that the model implicit in temperature’s quantitative status offers a better way for thinking about the quantitative status of mental attributes than models from measurement theory (§§5–6). (shrink)

The meaning of 'most' can be described in many ways. We offer a framework for distinguishing semantic descriptions, interpreted as psychological hypotheses that go beyond claims about sentential truth conditions, and an experiment that tells against an attractive idea: 'most' is understood in terms of one-to-one correspondence. Adults evaluated 'Most of the dots are yellow', as true or false, on many trials in which yellow dots and blue dots were displayed for 200 ms. Displays manipulated the ease of using a (...) 'one-to-one with remainder' strategy, and a strategy of using the Approximate Number System to compare of (approximations of) cardinalities. Interpreting such data requires care in thinking about how meaning is related to verification. But the results suggest that 'most' is understood in terms of cardinality comparison, even when counting is impossible. (shrink)

The interplay between ultrafilters and unbounded subsets of \ with the order \ of strict eventual domination is studied. Among the tools are special kinds of non-principal ultrafilters on \. These include simple P-points; that is, ultrafilters with a base that is well-ordered with respect to the reverse of the order \ of almost inclusion. It is shown that the cofinality of such a base must be either \, the least cardinality of \-unbounded set, or \, the least (...) class='Hi'>cardinality of a \-cofinal set. The small uncountable cardinal \ is introduced. Consequences of \ and of \ are explored; in particular, both imply \. Here \ is the reaping number, and is also the least cardinality of a \-base for a free ultrafilter. Both of these inequalities are shown to occur if there exist simple P-points of different cofinalities and there exist simple \-points and \-points), but this is a long-standing open problem. Six axioms on nonprincipal ultrafilters on \ and the relationships between them are discussed along with various models of set theory in which one or more are known to hold. The strongest of these, Axiom 1, is that for every free ultrafilter \ and for every \-unbounded \-chain C of increasing functions in \, C is also unbounded in the ultraproduct \. The other axioms replace one or both quantifiers with “there exists.” The negation of Axiom 3 in a model provides a family of normal sequentially compact spaces whose product is not countably compact. The question of whether such a family exists in ZFC, even with “normal” weakened to “regular”, is a famous unsolved problem of set-theoretic topology, known as the Scarborough–Stone problem. (shrink)

In this paper, we introduce a quasi-set theory without atoms. The quasi-sets (qsets) can have as elements completely indiscernible things which do not turn out to be the very same thing as it would be implied if its underlying logic was classical logic. A quasi-set can have a cardinal, called its quasi-cardinal, but this is made so that, at least for the finite case, the quasi-cardinal is not an ordinal, and hence the indistinguishable elements of a quasi-set cannot be ordered. (...) In the last sections, we show how the theory can be used to ground a quantum metaphysics of properties, which sees the quantum entities as bundles of properties, and we also introduce a new approach for the use of quantifiers in quantum physics. (shrink)