There is a good deal of disagreement about composition. There is firstorder disagreement: there are radically different answers to the special composition question—the question of under what circumstances the xs compose a y. There is second-order disagreement: there are different answers to the question of whether first-order disagreement is real or merely semantic. Virtually all disputants with respect to both the first-and second-order issues agree that the answer or answers to the special composition question will take the form of a (...) necessary truth or truths even though, as I will argue, such answers do not appear to be good candidates to be necessary truths. This paper provides an analysis of the concept of as it pertains to concrete objects, that fulfils two functions. First, it explicates the sense in which claims about composition are contingent and the sense in which they are necessary, and second, it provides a way of understanding when first-order disputes are substantial and when they are merely semantic. (shrink)

The paper argues that the view that the particular quantifier is ‘existentially loaded’ is a relatively new one historically and that it has become entrenched in modern philosophical logic for less than happy reasons.

It is widely agreed that Hume's description of human inductive reasoning is inadequate. But many philosophers think that this inadequacy in no way affects the force of Hume's argument for the unjustifiability of inductive reasoning. I argue that this constellation of opinions contains a serious tension, given that Hume was not merely pointing out that induction is fallible. I then explore a recent diagnosis of where Hume's sceptical argument goes wrong, due to Elliott Sober. Sober argues that Hume committed a (...) quantifier-shift fallacy, i.e. inferred a statement of ?? form from one of ?? form. The implications of this diagnosis for the traditional problem of induction are briefly examined. (shrink)

One of the central logical ideas in Wittgenstein’sTractatus logico-philosophicusis the elimination of the identity sign in favor of the so-called “exclusive interpretation” of names and quantifiers requiring different names to refer to different objects and (roughly) different variables to take different values. In this paper, we examine a recent development of these ideas in papers by Kai Wehmeier. We diagnose two main problems of Wehmeier’s account, the first concerning the treatment of individual constants, the second concerning so-called “pseudo-propositions” (Scheinsätze) of (...) classical logic such as$a=a$or$a=b \wedge b=c \rightarrow a=c$. We argue that overcoming these problems requires two fairly drastic departures from Wehmeier’s account: (1) Not every formula of classical first-order logic will be translatable into asingleformula of Wittgenstein’s exclusive notation. Instead, there will often be a multiplicity of possible translations, revealing the original “inclusive” formulas to beambiguous. (2) Certain formulas of first-order logic such as$a=a$will not be translatable into Wittgenstein’s notation at all, being thereby revealed as nonsensical pseudo-propositions which should be excluded from a “correct” conceptual notation. We provide translation procedures from inclusive quantifier-free logic into the exclusive notation that take these modifications into account and define a notion of logical equivalence suitable for assessing these translations. (shrink)

ABSTRACT A crucial issue in the debate about the correct treatment of natural language tense concerns covert variables: do we have reason to think there are any in the syntax, as the quantifier theorist maintains? If not, it seems we can quickly discount the quantifier theory from consideration, without even considering the data in its favour. And, indeed, there is a good reason to doubt that there are such variables: contemporary syntactic theory, notably, does not seem to posit (...) them. I respond to this argument going from the premise that positing covert variables is illicit to the conclusion that quantifier theories of tense are false. I argue that the argument fails by suggesting a non-committal understanding of the process of positing covert variables. On this view, even if we are not doing fundamental syntax in so positing, nevertheless there is a reason to think we are doing something theoretically productive, because it seems like an important part of the practice of semantics and because it seems like semantics is a discipline which is making progress. The progress of semantics supports the methodology of positing variables at its heart; the quantifier theorist of tense, accordingly, need not worry about their syntactic commitments. (shrink)

Despite overwhelming evidence suggesting that quantifier scope is a phenomenon that must be treated at the pragmatic level, most computational treatments of scope ambiguities have thus far been a collection of syntactically motivated preference rules. This might be in part due to the prevailing wisdom that a commonsense inferencing strategy would require the storage of and reasoning with a vast amount of background knowledge. In this paper we hope to demonstrate that the challenge in developing a commonsense inferencing strategy (...) is in the discovery of the relevant commonsense data and in a proper formulation of the inferencing strategy itself, and that a massive amount of background knowledge is not always required. In particular, we present a very effective procedure for resolving quantifier scope ambiguities at the pragmatic level using simple quantitative data that is readily available in most database environments. (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 establishes model-theoretic properties of \, a variation of monadic first-order logic that features the generalised quantifier \. We will also prove analogous versions of these results in the simpler setting of monadic first-order logic with and without equality and \, respectively). For each logic \ we will show the following. We provide syntactically defined fragments of \ characterising four different semantic properties of \-sentences: being monotone and continuous in a given set of monadic predicates; having truth preserved (...) under taking submodels or being truth invariant under taking quotients. In each case, we produce an effectively defined map that translates an arbitrary sentence \ to a sentence \ belonging to the corresponding syntactic fragment, with the property that \ is equivalent to \ precisely when it has the associated semantic property. As a corollary of our developments, we obtain that the four semantic properties above are decidable for \-sentences. (shrink)

It has been suggested that a substitutional semantics for quantification theory lends itself to nominalistic aims. I should like in this paper to explore that claim.

In Cieśliński (J Philos Logic 39:325–337, 2010), Cieśliński asked whether compositional truth theory with the additional axiom that all propositional tautologies are true is conservative over Peano Arithmetic. We provide a partial answer to this question, showing that if we additionally assume that truth predicate agrees with arithmetical truth on quantifier-free sentences, the resulting theory is as strong as $$\Delta _0$$ Δ 0 -induction for the compositional truth predicate, hence non-conservative. On the other hand, it can be shown with (...) a routine argument that the principle of quantifier-free correctness is itself conservative. (shrink)

In linguistic terms, a quantifier is an item that appears with a noun to specify the number or amount of referents indicated by the noun. In English, various kinds of quantification are lexically differentiated—universal quantification, distributive quantification, and universal-distributive. In Greek, however, quantification is conveyed syntactically using primarily one lexical item, namely πᾶς. In this article, we examine the syntactic patterns of πᾶς as a quantifier from a linguistic point of view with attention to the determination of the (...) noun, the number of the noun and the phrasal word order. We also examine the phenomenon of ‘floating’ quantification in which the quantifier moves to a new position in the noun phrase. Finally, we compare the patterns found in New Testament Greek with those of the quantifier כל in the Hebrew Bible in order to determine the extent and type of Semitic interference with respect to quantification in New Testament Greek grammar.Contribution: The syntactic patterns of πᾶς as a quantifier are identified and the semantic import of each pattern is described. The relationship of πᾶς to the quantifier כל in the Hebrew Bible shows evidence of Semitic interference in New Testament Greek grammar. (shrink)

We say that a first order formula Φ distinguishes a structure M over a vocabulary L from another structure M' over the same vocabulary if Φ is true on M but false on M'. A formula Φ defines an L-structure M if Φ distinguishes M from any other non-isomorphic L-structure M'. A formula Φ identifies an n-element L-structure M if Φ distinguishes M from any other non-isomorphic n-element L-structure M'. We prove that every n-element structure M is identifiable by a (...) formula with quantifier rank less than (1- 1/2k)n+k²-k+4 and at most one quantifier alternation, where k is the maximum relation arity of M. Moreover, if the automorphism group of M contains no transposition of two elements, the same result holds for definability rather than identification. The Bernays-Schönfinkel class consists of prenex formulas in which the existential quantifiers all precede the universal quantifiers. We prove that every n-element structure M is identifiable by a formula in the Bernays-Schönfinkel class with less than (1-1/2k²+2)n+k quantifiers. If in this class of identifying formulas we restrict the number of universal quantifiers to k, then less than n-√ n+k²+k quantifiers suffice to identify M and, as long as we keep the number of universal quantifiers bounded by a constant, at total n-O(√ n) quantifiers are necessary. (shrink)

We study the computational complexity of the model checking problem for quantifier-free dependence logic ${(\mathcal{D})}$ formulas. We characterize three thresholds in the complexity: logarithmic space (LOGSPACE), non-deterministic logarithmic space (NL) and non-deterministic polynomial time (NP).

We are concerned with showing how ‘labelled’ Natural Deduction presentation systems based on an extension of the so-called Curry-Howard functional interpretation can help us understand and generalise most of the deduction calculi designed to deal with the logical notion of existential quantification. We present the labelling mechanism for ‘’ using what we call ‘ɛ-terms’, which have the form of ‘a’) in a dual form to the ‘Ax.f’ terms of in the sense that the ‘witness’ is chosen at the time of (...) assertion/introduction.With the intention of demonstrating the generality of our framework, we provide a brief comparison with some other calculi of existentials, including the model-theoretic interpretations of Skolem and Herbrand, indicating the way in which some of the classical results on prenex normal forms can be extended to a wide range of logics. The essential ingredient is to look at the conceptual framework of labelled natural deduction as an attempted reconstruction of Frege's functional calculus where the devices of the Begriffsschrift work separately from, yet in harmony with, those of the Grundgesetze 1. (shrink)

I document a scope freezing effect found with negated quantifier phrases ). In a sentence with a negated quantifier phrase of the form [NEG DP1], no quantifier phrase DP2 can take scope between NEG and DP1. I show how this scope freezing effect can be explained in terms of the analysis of negated quantifier phrases given in Collins and Postal and Collins.

In “Elusive Knowledge” (1996), David Lewis deduces contextualism about 'knowledge' from an analysis of the nature of knowledge. For Lewis, the context relativity of 'knowledge' depends upon the fact that knowledge that p implies the elimination of all the possibilities in which ~p. But since 'all' is context relative, 'knowledge' is also context relative. In contrast to Lewis, in Knowledge and Practical Interests (2005), Jason Stanley argues that since all context sensitive expressions can have different interpretations within the same discourse, (...) contextualists cannot consistently embrace the following two claims: (i) 'knowledge' functions like a quantifier and (ii) distinct occurrences of 'knowledge' within the same discourse must be associated with the same standard. In response to Stanley, in my paper, I argue that (i) and (ii) are both true. More specifically, I argue that with the help of global domains, we can overcome Stanley’s objections to Lewis and, accordingly, provide the linguistic basis that epistemic contextualism needs. (shrink)

In this note we show that the so-called weakly extensional arithmetic in all finite types, which is based on a quantifier-free rule of extensionality due to C. Spector and which is of significance in the context of Gödel"s functional interpretation, does not satisfy the deduction theorem for additional axioms. This holds already for Π0 1-axioms. Previously, only the failure of the stronger deduction theorem for deductions from (possibly open) assumptions (with parameters kept fixed) was known.

the Central Division of the APA in Chicago, April 19-21 2007. The paper proposes an account of conditional donkey sentences, such as ‘if a farmer buys a donkey, he usually vaccinates it’, which accommodates the fact that the adverb of quantification seems to affect the interpretation of pronouns that are not within its syntactic scope. The analysis defended takes donkey pronouns to go proxy for partitive noun phrases with varying quantificational force. The variation in the interpretation of donkey pronouns, it (...) is argued, is determined by the linguistic environment in which the pronouns occur. A longer version of this paper can be found in the works in progress section below. (shrink)