List of errata to Rapaport, William J. (1978), "Meinongian Theories and a Russellian Paradox", Noûs 12: 153-180.

In this note, I will list instances where in the literature on subcomplete forcing and its forcing principles (mostly in articles of my own), the assumption of the continuum hypothesis, or that we are working above the continuum, was omitted. I state the correct statements and provide or point to correct proofs. There are also some new results, most of which revolve around showing the necessity of the extra assumption.

In this note, an error in the axiomatization of Ivlev’s modal system Sa+ which we inadvertedly reproduced in our paper “Finite non-deterministic semantics for some modal systems”, is fixed. Additionally, some axioms proposed in were slightly modified. All the technical results in which depend on the previous axiomatization were also fixed. Finally, the discussion about decidability of the level valuation semantics initiated in is taken up. The error in Ivlev’s axiomatization was originally pointed out by H. Omori and D. Skurt (...) in the paper “More modal semantics without possible worlds”, where an alternative solution was proposed. (shrink)

Due to a production error, two block-quotations were originally omitted from the final publication. These passages have been corrected in the web-version on the journal’s website (DOI: 10.1111/phil.12282), but cannot be corrected in the print/PDF version. Readers of the PDF version, please note the two corrections herein.

i n br e ve ha pos t o l e f ondament a del l ’ e di f i ci o logico-matematico contemporaneo» (R. Blanché, La logica e la sua storia da Aristotele a Russell, Ubaldini, Roma 1973, p. 311).

The goal of [3] is to sketch the construction of a syntactic categorical model of the bi-intuitionistic logic of assertions and hypotheses AH, axiomatized in a sequent calculus AH-G1, and to show that such a model has a chirality-like structure inspired by the notion of dialogue chirality by P-A. Melliès [8]. A chirality consists of a pair of adjoint functors L ⊣ R, with L: A → B, R: B → A, and of a functor (.)* : A → Bop(0,1) (...) satisfying certain conditions. The definition of the logic AH in [3] needs to be modified so that our categories A and B are actually dual. With this modification, a more complex structure emerges. (shrink)

A lengthy inventory of misreadings and other errors in Phillip Abbott's critique of recent essays on abortion by analytic philosophers.

Professor P. Bernays has kindly drawn my attention to the fact that the assignment of Godel numbers to formulas described on page 295 of volume I of this Journal, is not correct. Under this assignment, different formulas may obtain the same Godel number and therefore the argument given on page 296 under (i) is not cogent. The correct assignment would give, for the formula considered as an example, the Godel number 28. 320. 514. 782 The correction to be made on (...) page 294, L 20 is obvious. (shrink)

According to one of the most influential definitions, formulated by Michel Foucault in his Les anormaux, the monster is, since the Middle Ages, a violation of a “bio-juridical” order. In critically discussing the historical plausibility of this claim this article explores medical and philosophical conceptions of monsters between medieval and early modern period, addressing in particular the matter of the relationships between first and second causes in nature's errors. The main authors dealt with are Thomas Aquinas, Ambroise Paré, Francisco Toledo (...) and Fortunio Liceti. What emerges is that up to the 17 th century monsters were always conceived as products – and not as real contradictions – of a nature ordered by God's will, goodness and perfection, without a real “bio-juridical” order (as Foucault thinks). (shrink)

Professor P. Bernays has kindly drawn my attention to the tact that the assignment of Gödel numbers to formulas described on page 295 of volume I of this Journal, is not correct. Under this assignment, different formulas may obtain the same Gödel number and therefore the argument given on page 296 under (i) is not cogent. The correct assignment would give, for the formula considered as an example, the Gödel number 23. 329. 514. 732 The correction to be made on (...) page 294, l. 20 is obvious. (shrink)

The studies of mind and language have traditionally been linked to one another. Indeed, theories of reference have over time brought more and more mind into meaning. Here I argue that the links must be made far stronger still if we are to understand either. I offer some criticism of the causal-functionalist theories of reference on this ground, and present some ideas for improvements. The upshot will be that intentionality is largely internal and very real indeed, that it provides a (...) genuine distinction between systems that have it and ones that do not, and that it hinges on internal complexities of a specifiable sort, ones that are tied to the detection of error. What is meaning, what is it good for, and what is a naturalist account of how it works? In this paper. I will argue that first two of these questions should be answered primarily in terms of processes inside the mind/brain, contrary to most recent thinking on this. In the sequel paper, I will argue that a key aspect of this is the physical body of the meaning agent, and propose a way in which this might work and how an external notion of reference can be recaptured from internal processes. (shrink)

‘To Gödel via Babel’, MIND, July 1966.In (1), the last clause should read: ‘then the GN of the resulting P-sentence is x100.y’ In (21), the expression in Roman numerals should read: ‘$$Y.\frac{\hbox{ L }Y}{\hbox{ XIX }}$$’ In (25) and (27), the expression in Roman numerals should read: ‘$${(\hbox{ C }}^{\hbox{ XVII }}.\hbox{ D })\hbox{ . }\frac{\hbox{ L }\left({\hbox{ C }}^{\hbox{ XVII }}.\hbox{ D }\right)}{\hbox{ XIX }}$$’.

The main technical errors are in the literature survey. On pages 44, 93-94, 131 and 133 I claim that Fitting's and/or Rautenberg's systems are incomplete because they omit contraction. The claim is wrong because contraction is implicit in their set notation. Their systems are complete because they allow contraction on any formula whereas the systems in this technical report explicitly build contraction into certain rules, allowing contraction only on certain types of formulae. Please accept my apologies for any confusion this (...) causes you. (shrink)

Related Works: Original Paper: M. Randall Holmes. Strong Axioms of Infinity in NFU. J. Symbolic Logic, Volume 66, Issue 1 , 87--116. Project Euclid: euclid.jsl/1183746361.

10.1093/mind/fzl659p. 688, line 10:for So if is a theorem of M read So if ϕ is a theorem of Mp. 688, line 13:for where ϕ* is the result of indexing the terms of ϕ* to Mread where ϕ* is the result of indexing the terms of ϕ to M.