Handling vagueness in logic, via algebras and games. Lecture 1.
|
|
- Cassandra Snow
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Handling vagueness in logic, via algebras and games. Lecture 1. Serafina Lapenta and Diego Valota S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 1/43
2 Handbook of Mathematical Fuzzy Logic. Volume Studies in Logic, Mathematical Logic and Foundations. College Publications, London. P. Cintula, P. Hájek, and C. Noguera. Volume 1-2. Numbers 37-38, P. Cintula, C. G. Fermüller, and C. Noguera. Volume 3. Number 58, S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 2/43
3 Lecture 1. From precise to vague predicates. Definition and theories of vagueness. Degrees of truth. N.J.J. Smith. Fuzzy logics in theories of vagueness. In Handbook of Math. Fuzzy Logic. Vol. 3, pages Lecture 2. Introduction to mathematical fuzzy logic. The logics BL and MTL and related algebraic structures. L. Běhounek, P. Cintula and C. Noguera. Introduction to mathematical fuzzy logic. In Handbook of Math. Fuzzy Logic. Vol. 1, pages S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 3/43
4 Lecture 3. Łukasiewicz logic: motivations behind it and definitions. Vague predicates in Łukasiewicz logic, MV-algebras and Łukasiewicz-Moisil algebras. A. Di Nola and I. Leuştean. Łukasiewicz Logic and MV-Algebras. In Handbook of Math. Fuzzy Logic. Vol. 2, pages V. Boicescu, A. Filipoiu, G. Georgescu, and S. Rudeanu. Łukasiewicz-Moisil Algebras. Annals of discrete mathematics. North-Holland, S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 4/43
5 Lecture 4. Hintikka s Games for classical logics. Giles s Games for many-valued logics. C. G. Fermüller. Dialogue semantic games for fuzzy logics. In P. Cintula, C. G. Fermüller, and C. Noguera, editors, Handbook of Math. Fuzzy Logic. Vol. 3, pages S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 5/43
6 Lecture 5. Ulam-Rényi s Games for Łukasiewicz logic. Akinator for Łukasiewicz-Moisil logic. F. Cicalese and F. Montagna. Ulam-rényi game based semantics for fuzzy logics. In Handbook of Math. Fuzzy Logic. Vol. 3, pages D. Diaconescu and I. Leuştean. Towards game semantics for nuanced logics. In FUZZ-IEEE 2017, IEEE Int. Conference on Fuzzy Systems, S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 6/43
7 Serafina Lapenta Department of Mathematics, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II 132, 84084, Fisciano, Italy slapenta@unisa.it homepage: Diego Valota Department of Computer Science, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Comelico 39/41, 20135, Milano, Italy valota@di.unimi.it homepage: S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 7/43
8 From crisp to fuzzy P. Cintula and C. Noguera, A gentle introduction to MFL. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 8/43
9 From crisp to fuzzy P. Cintula and C. Noguera, A gentle introduction to MFL. For the contest of this course, logic is the science that studies correct reasoning S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 8/43
10 From crisp to fuzzy P. Cintula and C. Noguera, A gentle introduction to MFL. For the contest of this course, logic is the science that studies correct reasoning What is then a correct reasoning? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 8/43
11 From crisp to fuzzy P. Cintula and C. Noguera, A gentle introduction to MFL. For the contest of this course, logic is the science that studies correct reasoning What is then a correct reasoning? Consider the following If God exists, He must be good and omnipotent. If God was good and omnipotent, He would not allow human suffering. But, there is human suffering. Therefore, God does not exist. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 8/43
12 From crisp to fuzzy P. Cintula and C. Noguera, A gentle introduction to MFL. For the contest of this course, logic is the science that studies correct reasoning What is then a correct reasoning? Consider the following If God exists, He must be good and omnipotent. If God was good and omnipotent, He would not allow human suffering. But, there is human suffering. Therefore, God does not exist. Is this correct reasoning? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 8/43
13 Let s frame this argument in a formal system! Denumerable set of symbols: Var = {p, q, r, s,... p 1, p 2,... } called propositional variables. The language of CPC is given by (negation), (disjunction), (conjunction), (implication), (, ) (parenthesis) every symbol in Var. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 9/43
14 Classical propositional logic: syntax We look at Form, inductively defined by any element of Var belongs to Form, if ϕ Form, then ( ϕ) Form, if ϕ, ψ Form, then (ϕ ψ) Form, (ϕ ψ) Form, (ϕ ψ) Form. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 10/43
15 Classical propositional logic: semantics Bi-valence Principle Every proposition is either true or false. Assigning a truth value A 2-evaluation is a mapping e from Form to {0, 1} such that 1. e( ϕ) = 1 e(ϕ), 2. e(ϕ ψ) = max(e(ϕ), e(ψ)), 3. e(ϕ ψ) = min(e(ϕ), e(ψ)), 1 e(ϕ) e(ψ) 4. e(ϕ ψ) =. 0 otherwise S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 11/43
16 From crisp to fuzzy Let us fix classical logic as logic of choice, one can argue that correct reasoning has to be logical consequence S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 12/43
17 From crisp to fuzzy Let us fix classical logic as logic of choice, one can argue that correct reasoning has to be logical consequence Given Γ Form and ϕ Form, the deduction of ϕ from Γ is a correct reasoning if Γ = ϕ. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 12/43
18 From crisp to fuzzy Let us fix classical logic as logic of choice, one can argue that correct reasoning has to be logical consequence Given Γ Form and ϕ Form, the deduction of ϕ from Γ is a correct reasoning if Γ = ϕ. We are saying that there is no interpretation for which the premises are true and the the conclusion false. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 12/43
19 Some examples Modus ponens It is correct reasoning in CPC! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 13/43
20 Some examples Modus ponens It is correct reasoning in CPC! Abduction Abduction allows to deduce the premises from the conclusion, i.e. p q q p. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 13/43
21 Some examples Modus ponens It is correct reasoning in CPC! Abduction Abduction allows to deduce the premises from the conclusion, i.e. p q q p. It is not correct reasoning: take e(p) = 0 and e(q) = 1. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 13/43
22 So, does God exists? A formalization p= God exists, q= God is good, r= God is omnipotent, s= There is human suffering. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 14/43
23 So, does God exists? A formalization p= God exists, q= God is good, r= God is omnipotent, s= There is human suffering. Thus, the we get p q r q r s s p. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 14/43
24 p q r q r s s p. If e(p q r) = 1, e(q r s) = 1 and e(s) = 1, then necessarily e(p) = 0. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 15/43
25 p q r q r s s p. If e(p q r) = 1, e(q r s) = 1 and e(s) = 1, then necessarily e(p) = 0. Thus it is correct reasoning, but is it really a proof that god does not exist? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 15/43
26 p q r q r s s p. If e(p q r) = 1, e(q r s) = 1 and e(s) = 1, then necessarily e(p) = 0. Thus it is correct reasoning, but is it really a proof that god does not exist? Nope! We only proved that from true premises we get true conclusions. Where is the catch? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 15/43
27 When {0, 1} is not enough If you cut one head off of a two headed man, have you decapitated him? What is the maximum height of a short man? When does a fertilized egg develop into a person? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 16/43
28 When {0, 1} is not enough If you cut one head off of a two headed man, have you decapitated him? What is the maximum height of a short man? When does a fertilized egg develop into a person? Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology s entry for vague (1902): A proposition is vague when there are possible states of things concerning which it is intrinsically uncertain whether, had they been contemplated by the speaker, he would have regarded them as excluded or allowed by the proposition. By intrinsically uncertain we mean not uncertain in consequence of any ignorance of the interpreter, but because the speaker s habits of language were indeterminate. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 16/43
29 From crisp to fuzzy Due to the bivalence principle, we can easily draw a line between those object to which a predicate applies and all the others. We call such predicates crisps. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 17/43
30 From crisp to fuzzy Due to the bivalence principle, we can easily draw a line between those object to which a predicate applies and all the others. We call such predicates crisps. Examples are prime numbers, monotonic functions, divisible groups... basically, most mathematical objects are ok for 0/1 predicates. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 17/43
31 From crisp to fuzzy Due to the bivalence principle, we can easily draw a line between those object to which a predicate applies and all the others. We call such predicates crisps. Examples are prime numbers, monotonic functions, divisible groups... basically, most mathematical objects are ok for 0/1 predicates. It can be argued that classical logic is better suited to capture correct reasoning in mathematics... thus what about the "real world"? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 17/43
32 From crisp to fuzzy Vague predicated vs precise predicates What is a vague predicate? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 18/43
33 From crisp to fuzzy Vague predicated vs precise predicates What is a vague predicate? Good question! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 18/43
34 From crisp to fuzzy Vague predicated vs precise predicates What is a vague predicate? Good question! Think of (monadic) predicated such as "Tall", "Red", "Rich", "Poor"... predicates from natural language S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 18/43
35 From crisp to fuzzy Vague predicated vs precise predicates What is a vague predicate? Good question! Think of (monadic) predicated such as "Tall", "Red", "Rich", "Poor"... predicates from natural language Intuitively, you would agree with me in saying that they are all vague. But why? What they have in common? How can we formalize the notion of a vague predicate? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 18/43
36 From crisp to fuzzy Take a vague predicate V. Which are the defining features? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 19/43
37 From crisp to fuzzy Take a vague predicate V. Which are the defining features? 1. V admits borderline cases over the intended domain of interpretation: there is a c in the domain of the interpretation such that is not clear if V (c) holds or V (c) holds. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 19/43
38 From crisp to fuzzy Take a vague predicate V. Which are the defining features? 1. V admits borderline cases over the intended domain of interpretation: there is a c in the domain of the interpretation such that is not clear if V (c) holds or V (c) holds. Example: You have a group of people and you want to separate the Tall ones from the non-tall. You will have clear cases of Tallness, clear cases of non-tallness, but you will also have cases you cannot place in in Tall nor in non-tall. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 19/43
39 From crisp to fuzzy Take a vague predicate V. Which are the defining features? 1. V admits borderline cases over the intended domain of interpretation: there is a c in the domain of the interpretation such that is not clear if V (c) holds or V (c) holds. Example: You have a group of people and you want to separate the Tall ones from the non-tall. You will have clear cases of Tallness, clear cases of non-tallness, but you will also have cases you cannot place in in Tall nor in non-tall. When asked whether a person is tall, we tend to react with some sort of hedging response: sort of, a shrug, etc. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 19/43
40 From crisp to fuzzy 2. V lacks sharp boundaries over the intended domain of interpretation, i.e. there is no clearly defined boundary separating the extension of V ( ) from the one of its anti-extension. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 20/43
41 From crisp to fuzzy 2. V lacks sharp boundaries over the intended domain of interpretation, i.e. there is no clearly defined boundary separating the extension of V ( ) from the one of its anti-extension. Example: if I put a pin on a map, I can t draw a circle of all the places that are near my pin. I can undoubtedly do it for all the places that are within 1km from the pin. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 20/43
42 From crisp to fuzzy 3. V is susceptible to a Sorites series over the intended domain of interpretation. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 21/43
43 From crisp to fuzzy 3. V is susceptible to a Sorites series over the intended domain of interpretation. There is sequence of c 1,..., c n in the domain such that it is clear that V (c 1 ) holds, it is clear that V (c n ) does not hold and it is at least plausible that V (c i ) V (c i+1 ) holds. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 21/43
44 From crisp to fuzzy 3. V is susceptible to a Sorites series over the intended domain of interpretation. There is sequence of c 1,..., c n in the domain such that it is clear that V (c 1 ) holds, it is clear that V (c n ) does not hold and it is at least plausible that V (c i ) V (c i+1 ) holds. Example: A man who has no money is poor. If a poor man earns one euro, he remains poor. Therefore, a man who has one million euros is poor. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 21/43
45 From crisp to fuzzy A man who has no money is poor. If a poor man earns one euro, he remains poor. Therefore, a man who has one million euros is poor. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 22/43
46 From crisp to fuzzy A man who has no money is poor. If a poor man earns one euro, he remains poor. Therefore, a man who has one million euros is poor. P(0) is clearly true, P( ) is clearly false, each P(n) P(n + 1) is correct reasoning: we use MP! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 22/43
47 From crisp to fuzzy A man who has no money is poor. If a poor man earns one euro, he remains poor. Therefore, a man who has one million euros is poor. P(0) is clearly true, P( ) is clearly false, each P(n) P(n + 1) is correct reasoning: we use MP! Where is the issue? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 22/43
48 From crisp to fuzzy A man who has no money is poor. If a poor man earns one euro, he remains poor. Therefore, a man who has one million euros is poor. P(0) is clearly true, P( ) is clearly false, each P(n) P(n + 1) is correct reasoning: we use MP! Where is the issue? The truth fades little by little from P(0) top( ) Classical logic can t see it because of the bivalence principle! There is no clear jump from a true P(k) to a false P(k + 1). S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 22/43
49 A remark We have characterized a vague predicate by these 3 distinctive features: they give rise to borderline cases, their extensions have blurry boundaries, and they generate Sorite s paradoxes. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 23/43
50 A remark We have characterized a vague predicate by these 3 distinctive features: they give rise to borderline cases, their extensions have blurry boundaries, and they generate Sorite s paradoxes. These three features are closely related to each other, but they are not merely three ways of saying essentially the same thing! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 23/43
51 A remark We have characterized a vague predicate by these 3 distinctive features: they give rise to borderline cases, their extensions have blurry boundaries, and they generate Sorite s paradoxes. These three features are closely related to each other, but they are not merely three ways of saying essentially the same thing! One can say that fuzzy boundaries are caused by the possibility to have borderline cases and viceversa! It can be argued that the central issue is that borderline cases are not sharply bounded S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 23/43
52 When vagueness is not vagueness In natural language, vagueness is associated with other phenomena: S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 24/43
53 When vagueness is not vagueness In natural language, vagueness is associated with other phenomena: Uncertainty S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 24/43
54 When vagueness is not vagueness In natural language, vagueness is associated with other phenomena: Uncertainty it is an epistemic phenomenon: the speaker does not know if x had the property P. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 24/43
55 When vagueness is not vagueness In natural language, vagueness is associated with other phenomena: Uncertainty it is an epistemic phenomenon: the speaker does not know if x had the property P. E.g. "P = bearfast" applies to all xs that move faster than any polar bear moved on 11th January S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 24/43
56 When vagueness is not vagueness In natural language, vagueness is associated with other phenomena: Uncertainty it is an epistemic phenomenon: the speaker does not know if x had the property P. E.g. "P = bearfast" applies to all xs that move faster than any polar bear moved on 11th January There are clear cases of P (an airplane) and clear cases of non-p (a car that is parked), but there are borderline cases! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 24/43
57 When vagueness is not vagueness In natural language, vagueness is associated with other phenomena: Uncertainty it is an epistemic phenomenon: the speaker does not know if x had the property P. E.g. "P = bearfast" applies to all xs that move faster than any polar bear moved on 11th January There are clear cases of P (an airplane) and clear cases of non-p (a car that is parked), but there are borderline cases! P is not a vague predicate S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 24/43
58 When vagueness is not vagueness In natural language, vagueness is associated with other phenomena: Uncertainty it is an epistemic phenomenon: the speaker does not know if x had the property P. E.g. "P = bearfast" applies to all xs that move faster than any polar bear moved on 11th January There are clear cases of P (an airplane) and clear cases of non-p (a car that is parked), but there are borderline cases! P is not a vague predicate indeed, it does not generate a Sorite series. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 24/43
59 When vagueness is not vagueness Ambiguity S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 25/43
60 When vagueness is not vagueness Ambiguity when a predicate is subject to different interpretations. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 25/43
61 When vagueness is not vagueness Ambiguity when a predicate is subject to different interpretations. E.g. heavy is either "of great weight" or "serious, important". So "Mark is an heavy person" can be ambiguous. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 25/43
62 When vagueness is not vagueness Ambiguity when a predicate is subject to different interpretations. E.g. heavy is either "of great weight" or "serious, important". So "Mark is an heavy person" can be ambiguous. What s the distinction with vagueness? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 25/43
63 When vagueness is not vagueness Ambiguity when a predicate is subject to different interpretations. E.g. heavy is either "of great weight" or "serious, important". So "Mark is an heavy person" can be ambiguous. What s the distinction with vagueness? Vagueness is still present after the disambiguation on "heavy". S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 25/43
64 When vagueness is not vagueness Ambiguity when a predicate is subject to different interpretations. E.g. heavy is either "of great weight" or "serious, important". So "Mark is an heavy person" can be ambiguous. What s the distinction with vagueness? Vagueness is still present after the disambiguation on "heavy". Context sensitivity S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 25/43
65 When vagueness is not vagueness Ambiguity when a predicate is subject to different interpretations. E.g. heavy is either "of great weight" or "serious, important". So "Mark is an heavy person" can be ambiguous. What s the distinction with vagueness? Vagueness is still present after the disambiguation on "heavy". Context sensitivity when the extension of a P depends on the context. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 25/43
66 When vagueness is not vagueness Ambiguity when a predicate is subject to different interpretations. E.g. heavy is either "of great weight" or "serious, important". So "Mark is an heavy person" can be ambiguous. What s the distinction with vagueness? Vagueness is still present after the disambiguation on "heavy". Context sensitivity when the extension of a P depends on the context. E.g., "P = Tall" has different extensions among tennis players and basketball players S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 25/43
67 When vagueness is not vagueness Ambiguity when a predicate is subject to different interpretations. E.g. heavy is either "of great weight" or "serious, important". So "Mark is an heavy person" can be ambiguous. What s the distinction with vagueness? Vagueness is still present after the disambiguation on "heavy". Context sensitivity when the extension of a P depends on the context. E.g., "P = Tall" has different extensions among tennis players and basketball players we restrict P to a comparison class. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 25/43
68 When vagueness is not vagueness Ambiguity when a predicate is subject to different interpretations. E.g. heavy is either "of great weight" or "serious, important". So "Mark is an heavy person" can be ambiguous. What s the distinction with vagueness? Vagueness is still present after the disambiguation on "heavy". Context sensitivity when the extension of a P depends on the context. E.g., "P = Tall" has different extensions among tennis players and basketball players we restrict P to a comparison class. Many vague predicates are context sensitive, but context sensitivity and vagueness are different phenomena: vagueness arises even on a single occasion of use. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 25/43
69 When vagueness is not vagueness Generality S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 26/43
70 When vagueness is not vagueness Generality by way of example, when we reply to a question with a vague answer. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 26/43
71 When vagueness is not vagueness Generality by way of example, when we reply to a question with a vague answer. E.g. replying "I was born in the last century" instead of "I was born in 1987". S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 26/43
72 When vagueness is not vagueness Generality by way of example, when we reply to a question with a vague answer. E.g. replying "I was born in the last century" instead of "I was born in 1987". It is different from vagueness as it does not generate a Sorite series: there is not a clear truth of P(t) P(t + 1), if we consider people that are born one minute apart on 31st December S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 26/43
73 Theories of vagueness What do we want? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 27/43
74 Theories of vagueness What do we want? For our purpose, any theory of vagueness should answer to what is the meaning of a vague predicate? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 27/43
75 Theories of vagueness What do we want? For our purpose, any theory of vagueness should answer to what is the meaning of a vague predicate? semantics S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 27/43
76 Theories of vagueness What do we want? For our purpose, any theory of vagueness should answer to what is the meaning of a vague predicate? semantics how should we reason in presence of vagueness? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 27/43
77 Theories of vagueness What do we want? For our purpose, any theory of vagueness should answer to what is the meaning of a vague predicate? semantics how should we reason in presence of vagueness? syntax S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 27/43
78 Theories of vagueness What do we want? For our purpose, any theory of vagueness should answer to what is the meaning of a vague predicate? semantics how should we reason in presence of vagueness? syntax A theory of vagueness should solve a Sorite paradox! locate the error in the Sorite argument explain why it is a paradox rather than a mistake... why a competent speaker finds the argument compelling but not convincing? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 27/43
79 Non-fuzzy theories of vagueness Epistemicist solution: Vagueness is a problem of ignorance. All predicates are crisp, but we are unable to know the exact extension of a vague predicate. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 28/43
80 Non-fuzzy theories of vagueness Epistemicist solution: Vagueness is a problem of ignorance. All predicates are crisp, but we are unable to know the exact extension of a vague predicate. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 28/43
81 Non-fuzzy theories of vagueness Epistemicist solution: Vagueness is a problem of ignorance. All predicates are crisp, but we are unable to know the exact extension of a vague predicate. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. A remark: bearfast in the example of uncertainty does not clash with the epistemic approach! It gives an example of a whole class of objects for which no speaker can know if it belongs to the extension of P. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 28/43
82 Supervaluationist solution: The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications (possible ways to make it crisp). Truth is supertruth, i.e. true under all precisifications. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 29/43
83 Supervaluationist solution: The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications (possible ways to make it crisp). Truth is supertruth, i.e. true under all precisifications. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 29/43
84 Supervaluationist solution: The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications (possible ways to make it crisp). Truth is supertruth, i.e. true under all precisifications. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. Vague predicates do not have a univocal meaning. A vague language is a set of crisp languages. For every utterance of a sentence involving a vague predicate, pragmatical conventions endow it with some particular crisp meaning. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 29/43
85 Supervaluationist solution: The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications (possible ways to make it crisp). Truth is supertruth, i.e. true under all precisifications. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. Vague predicates do not have a univocal meaning. A vague language is a set of crisp languages. For every utterance of a sentence involving a vague predicate, pragmatical conventions endow it with some particular crisp meaning. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 29/43
86 Supervaluationist solution: The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications (possible ways to make it crisp). Truth is supertruth, i.e. true under all precisifications. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. Vague predicates do not have a univocal meaning. A vague language is a set of crisp languages. For every utterance of a sentence involving a vague predicate, pragmatical conventions endow it with some particular crisp meaning. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. This is closely related to context sensitivity, but it is not the same! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 29/43
87 Epistemicist solution Vagueness is a problem of ignorance. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 30/43
88 Epistemicist solution Vagueness is a problem of ignorance. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. We don t know for which k the implication is false, and we assume that there all implications are true. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 30/43
89 Epistemicist solution Vagueness is a problem of ignorance. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. We don t know for which k the implication is false, and we assume that there all implications are true. This implies a split between the meaning of the predicate and the actual usage of the same predicate by a competent speaker! Usage should determine meaning. meaning true false use assert hedge deny S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 30/43
90 Epistemicist solution Pros: Classical reasoning is correct even in presence of vague predicates. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 31/43
91 Epistemicist solution Pros: Classical reasoning is correct even in presence of vague predicates. Cons: Location Problem: Why P(k) P(k + 1) is false for that particular k? Meaning-Usage: meaning is m-partite, usage is n-partite. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 31/43
92 Supervaluationist solution The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 32/43
93 Supervaluationist solution The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications. One option is to precisify via classical sharpening. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 32/43
94 Supervaluationist solution The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications. One option is to precisify via classical sharpening. Start with a 3-valued evaluation: V 3 : Var {0,, 1}. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 32/43
95 Supervaluationist solution The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications. One option is to precisify via classical sharpening. Start with a 3-valued evaluation: V 3 : Var {0,, 1}. Taken a classical V 2 : Var {0, 1}, we say that V 2 extends V 3 iff V 3 (P) = 0 (V 3 (P) = 1) then V 2 (P) = 0 (V 2 (P) = 1). S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 32/43
96 Supervaluationist solution The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications. One option is to precisify via classical sharpening. Start with a 3-valued evaluation: V 3 : Var {0,, 1}. Taken a classical V 2 : Var {0, 1}, we say that V 2 extends V 3 iff V 3 (P) = 0 (V 3 (P) = 1) then V 2 (P) = 0 (V 2 (P) = 1). Acceptable extensions allow to precisify all vague predicates at once. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 32/43
97 Supervaluationist solution The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications. One option is to precisify via classical sharpening. Start with a 3-valued evaluation: V 3 : Var {0,, 1}. Taken a classical V 2 : Var {0, 1}, we say that V 2 extends V 3 iff V 3 (P) = 0 (V 3 (P) = 1) then V 2 (P) = 0 (V 2 (P) = 1). Acceptable extensions allow to precisify all vague predicates at once. Then V 3 (P) = 1 iff V 2 (P) = 1 for any possible extension. The same for V 3 (P) = 0. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 32/43
98 Supervaluationist solution The meaning of vague predicate is the set of its precisifications. One option is to precisify via classical sharpening. Start with a 3-valued evaluation: V 3 : Var {0,, 1}. Taken a classical V 2 : Var {0, 1}, we say that V 2 extends V 3 iff V 3 (P) = 0 (V 3 (P) = 1) then V 2 (P) = 0 (V 2 (P) = 1). Acceptable extensions allow to precisify all vague predicates at once. Then V 3 (P) = 1 iff V 2 (P) = 1 for any possible extension. The same for V 3 (P) = 0. If there exist extensions V 2, W 2 such that V 2 (P) = 1 and W 2 (P) = 0, then V 3 (P) =. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 32/43
99 Supervaluationist solution How is the Sorite paradox solved? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 33/43
100 Supervaluationist solution How is the Sorite paradox solved? If P(last) is false in any precisification, then V 3 (P(last)) = 0; S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 33/43
101 Supervaluationist solution How is the Sorite paradox solved? If P(last) is false in any precisification, then V 3 (P(last)) = 0; If x or x is borderline case, then V 3 (P(x) P(x )) = = V 3 (P(x) P(x ))... S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 33/43
102 Supervaluationist solution How is the Sorite paradox solved? If P(last) is false in any precisification, then V 3 (P(last)) = 0; If x or x is borderline case, then V 3 (P(x) P(x )) = = V 3 (P(x) P(x ))... Then V 2 (P(x) P(x )) = 1 in some model and W 2 (P(x) P(x )) = 0 in others! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 33/43
103 Supervaluationist solution How is the Sorite paradox solved? If P(last) is false in any precisification, then V 3 (P(last)) = 0; If x or x is borderline case, then V 3 (P(x) P(x )) = = V 3 (P(x) P(x ))... Then V 2 (P(x) P(x )) = 1 in some model and W 2 (P(x) P(x )) = 0 in others! Thus, we cannot really say for any object in the Sorite series, that it is the last x such that x is P and x is not P! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 33/43
104 Supervaluationist solution How is the Sorite paradox solved? If P(last) is false in any precisification, then V 3 (P(last)) = 0; If x or x is borderline case, then V 3 (P(x) P(x )) = = V 3 (P(x) P(x ))... Then V 2 (P(x) P(x )) = 1 in some model and W 2 (P(x) P(x )) = 0 in others! Thus, we cannot really say for any object in the Sorite series, that it is the last x such that x is P and x is not P! we mistakenly conclude that P(x) P(x ) is true. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 33/43
105 Supervaluationist solution Pros: Accepts Meaning-Usage; Cons: 1. Usage is a fuzzy tri-partition, Meaning is a sharp tri-partition; 2. predicates cannot always precisified independently of one another; S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 34/43
106 Contextual solution A vague predicate depends on the context. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 35/43
107 Contextual solution A vague predicate depends on the context. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. We partially precisify P by classifying one of its borderline cases as a positive or a negative. The boundaries of P shift as the conversation proceed. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 35/43
108 Contextual solution A vague predicate depends on the context. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. We partially precisify P by classifying one of its borderline cases as a positive or a negative. The boundaries of P shift as the conversation proceed. It can been seen as a recursive tripartite approach... or a local supervaluation. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 35/43
109 Contextual solution A vague predicate depends on the context. Some implication P(k) P(k + 1) is false. We partially precisify P by classifying one of its borderline cases as a positive or a negative. The boundaries of P shift as the conversation proceed. It can been seen as a recursive tripartite approach... or a local supervaluation. How it works on a Sorite argument? P(k + 1) is false in the intended model, but we find it plausible because: 1. is not false before precisification, 2. assuming that some object x in the series is P, we change the model in which P(k) P(k + 1) holds. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 35/43
110 Contextual solution Pros: there is a more local and less idealised form of precisification; Cons: 1. what prompt the shift in the intended model? 2. the solution to the Sorite argument is not satisfactory for the speaker who believe that classifying a borderline case as P or not P is enough to render these classification true in some intended model: still, why P(k) P(k + 1) is true? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 36/43
111 Contextual solution Pros: there is a more local and less idealised form of precisification; Cons: 1. what prompt the shift in the intended model? 2. the solution to the Sorite argument is not satisfactory for the speaker who believe that classifying a borderline case as P or not P is enough to render these classification true in some intended model: still, why P(k) P(k + 1) is true? A remark We said that context sensitivity is not vagueness... It is topic of debate whether fixing a context for the whole language (and not a comparison class) makes contextualism not appropriate for handling vagueness! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 36/43
112 Truth comes in degrees: fuzzy logic in vagueness From truth values set {0, 1} to a set D of degrees of truth. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 37/43
113 Truth comes in degrees: fuzzy logic in vagueness From truth values set {0, 1} to a set D of degrees of truth. Pros?? Cons?? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 37/43
114 Truth comes in degrees: fuzzy logic in vagueness From truth values set {0, 1} to a set D of degrees of truth. Pros?? Cons?? They depends on the structure of D, i.e. (linearly or partially) ordered, metric,... S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 37/43
115 Truth comes in degrees: fuzzy logic in vagueness From truth values set {0, 1} to a set D of degrees of truth. Pros?? Cons?? They depends on the structure of D, i.e. (linearly or partially) ordered, metric,... The most common approach is to take D = [0, 1], otherwise, we can require structural properties by taking D = D,,,,, 0, 1 as residuated lattice or an algebraic structure. About the Sorite: P(0) is completely true and P( ) is completely false. The premises P(k) P(k + 1) are very true, but not completely. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 37/43
116 Truth comes in degrees: fuzzy logic in vagueness Arguments for: 0. Degrees of truth account for vagueness as it is, without focusing on how it can be removed or reduced S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 38/43
117 Truth comes in degrees: fuzzy logic in vagueness Arguments for: 0. Degrees of truth account for vagueness as it is, without focusing on how it can be removed or reduced 1. Fuzzy theories can solve the Sorite paradox without any departure from the usual modus operandi of formal semantics! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 38/43
118 Truth comes in degrees: fuzzy logic in vagueness Arguments for: 0. Degrees of truth account for vagueness as it is, without focusing on how it can be removed or reduced 1. Fuzzy theories can solve the Sorite paradox without any departure from the usual modus operandi of formal semantics! 2. Degrees of truth allow for a sharper definition of a vague predicate! What do I mean by sharper? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 38/43
119 Truth comes in degrees: fuzzy logic in vagueness Arguments for: 0. Degrees of truth account for vagueness as it is, without focusing on how it can be removed or reduced 1. Fuzzy theories can solve the Sorite paradox without any departure from the usual modus operandi of formal semantics! 2. Degrees of truth allow for a sharper definition of a vague predicate! What do I mean by sharper? What is water? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 38/43
120 Truth comes in degrees: fuzzy logic in vagueness Arguments for: 0. Degrees of truth account for vagueness as it is, without focusing on how it can be removed or reduced 1. Fuzzy theories can solve the Sorite paradox without any departure from the usual modus operandi of formal semantics! 2. Degrees of truth allow for a sharper definition of a vague predicate! What do I mean by sharper? What is water? A quite discussed proposal: vague predicates are tolerant. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 38/43
121 Truth comes in degrees: fuzzy logic in vagueness Arguments for: 0. Degrees of truth account for vagueness as it is, without focusing on how it can be removed or reduced 1. Fuzzy theories can solve the Sorite paradox without any departure from the usual modus operandi of formal semantics! 2. Degrees of truth allow for a sharper definition of a vague predicate! What do I mean by sharper? What is water? A quite discussed proposal: vague predicates are tolerant. Tolerance: if a and b are very similar in P-relevant aspects, then P(a) and P(b) are identical w.r.t. their truth. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 38/43
122 Truth comes in degrees But Tolerance creates contradictions: in a Sorite series, P(k) and P(k + 1) are all very similar, while P(0) is true and P(last) is false! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 39/43
123 Truth comes in degrees But Tolerance creates contradictions: in a Sorite series, P(k) and P(k + 1) are all very similar, while P(0) is true and P(last) is false! Another proposal [N. Smith] Vagueness is closeness. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 39/43
124 Truth comes in degrees But Tolerance creates contradictions: in a Sorite series, P(k) and P(k + 1) are all very similar, while P(0) is true and P(last) is false! Another proposal [N. Smith] Vagueness is closeness. Closeness: if a and b are very similar in P-relevant aspects, then P(a) and P(b) are very similar w.r.t. their truth. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 39/43
125 Truth comes in degrees But Tolerance creates contradictions: in a Sorite series, P(k) and P(k + 1) are all very similar, while P(0) is true and P(last) is false! Another proposal [N. Smith] Vagueness is closeness. Closeness: if a and b are very similar in P-relevant aspects, then P(a) and P(b) are very similar w.r.t. their truth. Closeness allows to define vague predicates using degrees of truth and settles the Sorite series. Does it works for blurry boundaries and borderline cases? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 39/43
126 Truth comes in degrees Blurry boundaries. if a predicate P satisfies closeness, can it have sharp boundaries? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 40/43
127 Truth comes in degrees Blurry boundaries. if a predicate P satisfies closeness, can it have sharp boundaries? It can t! Otherwise we will have two objects that are very similar in P-relevant aspects, one of them true and the other false! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 40/43
128 Truth comes in degrees Blurry boundaries. if a predicate P satisfies closeness, can it have sharp boundaries? It can t! Otherwise we will have two objects that are very similar in P-relevant aspects, one of them true and the other false! Borderline cases. For a predicate that satisfies closeness, the existence of a Sorite series implies that some x in the extension of P is neither true or false: that is, a borderline case! S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 40/43
129 Truth comes in degrees Arguments against: Artificial precision. How can we assess that a coat is red with degree instead of 0.899? S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 41/43
130 Truth comes in degrees Arguments against: Artificial precision. How can we assess that a coat is red with degree instead of 0.899? This problem only applies to those theories that either use [0, 1] as set of truth values or fix a unique intended model for each vague argument. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 41/43
131 Truth comes in degrees Arguments against: Artificial precision. How can we assess that a coat is red with degree instead of 0.899? This problem only applies to those theories that either use [0, 1] as set of truth values or fix a unique intended model for each vague argument. There are some solution in literature, one of them is fuzzy plurivaluationism: from one unique model to multiple acceptable models. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 41/43
132 Truth comes in degrees Arguments against: Truth functionality. Truth values are incompatible with "ordinary" use of compound propositions when dealing with borderline cases. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 42/43
133 Truth comes in degrees Arguments against: Truth functionality. Truth values are incompatible with "ordinary" use of compound propositions when dealing with borderline cases. One example is the fact that "x is Red" or "x is not red" is not always true. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 42/43
134 Truth comes in degrees Arguments against: Truth functionality. Truth values are incompatible with "ordinary" use of compound propositions when dealing with borderline cases. One example is the fact that "x is Red" or "x is not red" is not always true. But these arguments forget about the wide plethora of fuzzy logics and they seem to be always argued only based on the critics s intuitions. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 42/43
135 Truth comes in degrees Arguments against: Truth functionality. Truth values are incompatible with "ordinary" use of compound propositions when dealing with borderline cases. One example is the fact that "x is Red" or "x is not red" is not always true. But these arguments forget about the wide plethora of fuzzy logics and they seem to be always argued only based on the critics s intuitions. There are just as many arguments that confute this critics. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 42/43
136 Truth comes in degrees Arguments against: Truth functionality. Truth values are incompatible with "ordinary" use of compound propositions when dealing with borderline cases. One example is the fact that "x is Red" or "x is not red" is not always true. But these arguments forget about the wide plethora of fuzzy logics and they seem to be always argued only based on the critics s intuitions. There are just as many arguments that confute this critics. Empirical data can be found in order to lean both in favor and against truth functionality of fuzzy logics. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 42/43
137 End of Lecture 1. S. Lapenta and D. Valota (ESSLLI 2018) Lecture 1 43/43
VAGUENESS. Francis Jeffry Pelletier and István Berkeley Department of Philosophy University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
VAGUENESS Francis Jeffry Pelletier and István Berkeley Department of Philosophy University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Vagueness: an expression is vague if and only if it is possible that it give
More information(Some More) Vagueness
(Some More) Vagueness Otávio Bueno Department of Philosophy University of Miami Coral Gables, FL 33124 E-mail: otaviobueno@mac.com Three features of vague predicates: (a) borderline cases It is common
More informationThe paradox we re discussing today is not a single argument, but a family of arguments. Here s an example of this sort of argument:!
The Sorites Paradox The paradox we re discussing today is not a single argument, but a family of arguments. Here s an example of this sort of argument:! Height Sorites 1) Someone who is 7 feet in height
More informationVagueness and supervaluations
Vagueness and supervaluations UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Supervaluations We saw two problems with the three-valued approach: 1. sharp boundaries 2. counterintuitive consequences
More informationSupervaluationism and Fara s argument concerning higher-order vagueness
Supervaluationism and Fara s argument concerning higher-order vagueness Pablo Cobreros pcobreros@unav.es January 26, 2011 There is an intuitive appeal to truth-value gaps in the case of vagueness. The
More informationInformalizing Formal Logic
Informalizing Formal Logic Antonis Kakas Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Cyprus antonis@ucy.ac.cy Abstract. This paper discusses how the basic notions of formal logic can be expressed
More informationHorwich and the Liar
Horwich and the Liar Sergi Oms Sardans Logos, University of Barcelona 1 Horwich defends an epistemic account of vagueness according to which vague predicates have sharp boundaries which we are not capable
More informationTHE PROBLEM OF HIGHER-ORDER VAGUENESS
THE PROBLEM OF HIGHER-ORDER VAGUENESS By IVANA SIMIĆ A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY
More informationWilliams on Supervaluationism and Logical Revisionism
Williams on Supervaluationism and Logical Revisionism Nicholas K. Jones Non-citable draft: 26 02 2010. Final version appeared in: The Journal of Philosophy (2011) 108: 11: 633-641 Central to discussion
More informationFuzzy Logic and Higher-Order Vagueness
Fuzzy Logic and Higher-Order Vagueness Nicholas J.J. Smith The major reason given in the philosophical literature for dissatisfaction with theories of vagueness based on fuzzy logic is that such theories
More informationFuzzy Logic and Higher-Order Vagueness
Fuzzy Logic and Higher-Order Vagueness NICHOLAS J.J. SMITH 1 The major reason given in the philosophical literature for dissatisfaction with theories of vagueness based on fuzzy logic is that such theories
More informationUnderstanding Truth Scott Soames Précis Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume LXV, No. 2, 2002
1 Symposium on Understanding Truth By Scott Soames Précis Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume LXV, No. 2, 2002 2 Precis of Understanding Truth Scott Soames Understanding Truth aims to illuminate
More informationComments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions
Comments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions Christopher Menzel Texas A&M University March 16, 2008 Since Arthur Prior first made us aware of the issue, a lot of philosophical thought has gone into
More informationVAGUENESS, TRUTH, AND NOTHING ELSE. David Luke John Elson. Chapel Hill 2009
VAGUENESS, TRUTH, AND NOTHING ELSE David Luke John Elson A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
More informationWhat is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 Pan-Hellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece
What is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 Pan-Hellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece Outline of this Talk 1. What is the nature of logic? Some history
More informationChapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning Strong Syllogism
Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning................... 3 1.1.1 Strong Syllogism......................... 3 1.1.2 Weak Syllogism.......................... 4 1.1.3 Transitivity
More informationArtificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 02 Lecture - 03 So in the last
More informationResponses to the sorites paradox
Responses to the sorites paradox phil 20229 Jeff Speaks April 21, 2008 1 Rejecting the initial premise: nihilism....................... 1 2 Rejecting one or more of the other premises....................
More informationWRIGHT ON BORDERLINE CASES AND BIVALENCE 1
WRIGHT ON BORDERLINE CASES AND BIVALENCE 1 HAMIDREZA MOHAMMADI Abstract. The aim of this paper is, firstly to explain Crispin Wright s quandary view of vagueness, his intuitionistic response to sorites
More informationTruthier Than Thou: Truth, Supertruth and Probability of Truth
to appear in Noûs Truthier Than Thou: Truth, Supertruth and Probability of Truth Nicholas J.J. Smith Department of Philosophy, University of Sydney Abstract Different formal tools are useful for different
More informationChadwick Prize Winner: Christian Michel THE LIAR PARADOX OUTSIDE-IN
Chadwick Prize Winner: Christian Michel THE LIAR PARADOX OUTSIDE-IN To classify sentences like This proposition is false as having no truth value or as nonpropositions is generally considered as being
More informationParadox of Deniability
1 Paradox of Deniability Massimiliano Carrara FISPPA Department, University of Padua, Italy Peking University, Beijing - 6 November 2018 Introduction. The starting elements Suppose two speakers disagree
More informationDoes Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction?
Does Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction? We argue that, if deduction is taken to at least include classical logic (CL, henceforth), justifying CL - and thus deduction
More informationThe paradox we re discussing today is not a single argument, but a family of arguments. Here are some examples of this sort of argument:
The sorites paradox The paradox we re discussing today is not a single argument, but a family of arguments. Here are some examples of this sort of argument: 1. Someone who is 7 feet in height is tall.
More informationVagueness and Uncertainty. Andrew Bacon
Vagueness and Uncertainty Andrew Bacon June 17, 2009 ABSTRACT In this thesis I investigate the behaviour of uncertainty about vague matters. It is fairly common view that vagueness involves uncertainty
More informationRevisiting the Socrates Example
Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements Building Arguments for Quantified
More informationExercise Sets. KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness. Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014
Exercise Sets KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014 1 Exercise Set 1 Propositional and Predicate Logic 1. Use Definition 1.1 (Handout I Propositional
More informationAn alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics
An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics 1. In traditional (truth-theoretic) semantics, interpretations serve to specify when statements are true and when they are false.
More informationRussell: On Denoting
Russell: On Denoting DENOTING PHRASES Russell includes all kinds of quantified subject phrases ( a man, every man, some man etc.) but his main interest is in definite descriptions: the present King of
More informationVagueness and Conversation
I don t know what you mean by glory, Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you don t till I tell you. I meant there s a nice knock-down argument for you! But glory doesn t mean a nice
More informationIs the law of excluded middle a law of logic?
Is the law of excluded middle a law of logic? Introduction I will conclude that the intuitionist s attempt to rule out the law of excluded middle as a law of logic fails. They do so by appealing to harmony
More informationConditionals IV: Is Modus Ponens Valid?
Conditionals IV: Is Modus Ponens Valid? UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 The intuitive counterexamples McGee [2] offers these intuitive counterexamples to Modus Ponens: 1. (a)
More informationVarieties of Apriority
S E V E N T H E X C U R S U S Varieties of Apriority T he notions of a priori knowledge and justification play a central role in this work. There are many ways in which one can understand the a priori,
More informationLing 98a: The Meaning of Negation (Week 1)
Yimei Xiang yxiang@fas.harvard.edu 17 September 2013 1 What is negation? Negation in two-valued propositional logic Based on your understanding, select out the metaphors that best describe the meaning
More information(Refer Slide Time 03:00)
Artificial Intelligence Prof. Anupam Basu Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture - 15 Resolution in FOPL In the last lecture we had discussed about
More informationELEMENTS OF LOGIC. 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions
Handout 1 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions In our day to day lives, we find ourselves arguing with other people. Sometimes we want someone to do or accept something as true
More informationIntroduction. I. Proof of the Minor Premise ( All reality is completely intelligible )
Philosophical Proof of God: Derived from Principles in Bernard Lonergan s Insight May 2014 Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. Magis Center of Reason and Faith Lonergan s proof may be stated as follows: Introduction
More informationQuandary and Intuitionism: Crispin Wright on Vagueness
Forthcoming in A. Miller (ed), Essays for Crispin Wright: Logic, Language and Mathematics (OUP) Quandary and Intuitionism: Crispin Wright on Vagueness Stephen Schiffer New York University I 1. The philosophical
More informationIllustrating Deduction. A Didactic Sequence for Secondary School
Illustrating Deduction. A Didactic Sequence for Secondary School Francisco Saurí Universitat de València. Dpt. de Lògica i Filosofia de la Ciència Cuerpo de Profesores de Secundaria. IES Vilamarxant (España)
More informationStudy Guides. Chapter 1 - Basic Training
Study Guides Chapter 1 - Basic Training Argument: A group of propositions is an argument when one or more of the propositions in the group is/are used to give evidence (or if you like, reasons, or grounds)
More informationMoral Relativism and Conceptual Analysis. David J. Chalmers
Moral Relativism and Conceptual Analysis David J. Chalmers An Inconsistent Triad (1) All truths are a priori entailed by fundamental truths (2) No moral truths are a priori entailed by fundamental truths
More information1. Lukasiewicz s Logic
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 29/3 (2000), pp. 115 124 Dale Jacquette AN INTERNAL DETERMINACY METATHEOREM FOR LUKASIEWICZ S AUSSAGENKALKÜLS Abstract An internal determinacy metatheorem is proved
More informationLogical Omniscience in the Many Agent Case
Logical Omniscience in the Many Agent Case Rohit Parikh City University of New York July 25, 2007 Abstract: The problem of logical omniscience arises at two levels. One is the individual level, where an
More informationFuture Contingents, Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle Muddle
Future Contingents, Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle Muddle For whatever reason, we might think that contingent statements about the future have no determinate truth value. Aristotle, in
More informationScott Soames: Understanding Truth
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXV, No. 2, September 2002 Scott Soames: Understanding Truth MAlTHEW MCGRATH Texas A & M University Scott Soames has written a valuable book. It is unmatched
More informationUnsharpenable Vagueness
PHILOSOPHICAL TOPICS VOL 28, No.1, SPRING 2000 Unsharpenable Vagueness John Collins and Achille C. Varzi Columbia University A plausible thought about vagueness is that it involves a form of semantic incompleteness.
More informationPotentialism about set theory
Potentialism about set theory Øystein Linnebo University of Oslo SotFoM III, 21 23 September 2015 Øystein Linnebo (University of Oslo) Potentialism about set theory 21 23 September 2015 1 / 23 Open-endedness
More informationVague objects with sharp boundaries
Vague objects with sharp boundaries JIRI BENOVSKY 1. In this article I shall consider two seemingly contradictory claims: first, the claim that everybody who thinks that there are ordinary objects has
More informationVagueness as Indeterminacy Brian Weatherson, Cornell University * October 19, 2006
Vagueness as Indeterminacy Brian Weatherson, Cornell University * October 19, 2006 Recently there has been a flurry of proposals on how to define vagueness. These proposals are not meant to amount to theories
More informationOverview of Today s Lecture
Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 Overview of Today s Lecture Music: Robin Trower, Daydream (King Biscuit Flower Hour concert, 1977) Administrative Stuff (lots of it) Course Website/Syllabus [i.e.,
More informationCircumscribing Inconsistency
Circumscribing Inconsistency Philippe Besnard IRISA Campus de Beaulieu F-35042 Rennes Cedex Torsten H. Schaub* Institut fur Informatik Universitat Potsdam, Postfach 60 15 53 D-14415 Potsdam Abstract We
More informationLoading Intelex { Poiesis : Philosophical Topics }
Philosophical Topics Volume 28 Number 1, Spring 2000 Articles Delia Graff: Shifting Sands: An Interest-Relative Theory of Vagueness Page 45 Princeton University Delia Graff: Shifting Sands: An Interest-Relative
More informationLGCS 199DR: Independent Study in Pragmatics
LGCS 99DR: Independent Study in Pragmatics Jesse Harris & Meredith Landman September 0, 203 Last class, we discussed the difference between semantics and pragmatics: Semantics The study of the literal
More informationTEMPORAL EXTERNALISM, CONSTITUTIVE NORMS, AND THEORIES OF VAGUENESS HENRY JACKMAN. Introduction
TEMPORAL EXTERNALISM, CONSTITUTIVE NORMS, AND THEORIES OF VAGUENESS HENRY JACKMAN Introduction Vagueness has always been a problem for philosophers. This is true in a number of ways. One obvious way is
More informationBelieving Epistemic Contradictions
Believing Epistemic Contradictions Bob Beddor & Simon Goldstein Bridges 2 2015 Outline 1 The Puzzle 2 Defending Our Principles 3 Troubles for the Classical Semantics 4 Troubles for Non-Classical Semantics
More information1. Introduction Formal deductive logic Overview
1. Introduction 1.1. Formal deductive logic 1.1.0. Overview In this course we will study reasoning, but we will study only certain aspects of reasoning and study them only from one perspective. The special
More informationVerificationism. PHIL September 27, 2011
Verificationism PHIL 83104 September 27, 2011 1. The critique of metaphysics... 1 2. Observation statements... 2 3. In principle verifiability... 3 4. Strong verifiability... 3 4.1. Conclusive verifiability
More informationArtificial Intelligence Prof. P. Dasgupta Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Artificial Intelligence Prof. P. Dasgupta Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture- 9 First Order Logic In the last class, we had seen we have studied
More informationThe Truth about Vagueness PREPRINT. Forthcoming in On the Sorites Paradox, eds. Ali Abasenezhad and Otavio Beuno, Springer, 2017
The Truth about Vagueness PREPRINT Forthcoming in On the Sorites Paradox, eds. Ali Abasenezhad and Otavio Beuno, Springer, 2017 Kirk Ludwig and Greg Ray 1. Introduction What is the lesson of the Sorites
More informationTHE SEMANTIC REALISM OF STROUD S RESPONSE TO AUSTIN S ARGUMENT AGAINST SCEPTICISM
SKÉPSIS, ISSN 1981-4194, ANO VII, Nº 14, 2016, p. 33-39. THE SEMANTIC REALISM OF STROUD S RESPONSE TO AUSTIN S ARGUMENT AGAINST SCEPTICISM ALEXANDRE N. MACHADO Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) Email:
More informationVarieties of Vagueness *
Varieties of Vagueness * TRENTON MERRICKS Virginia Commonwealth University Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (2001): 145-157. I Everyone agrees that it can be questionable whether a man is bald,
More informationSemantic Entailment and Natural Deduction
Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction Alice Gao Lecture 6, September 26, 2017 Entailment 1/55 Learning goals Semantic entailment Define semantic entailment. Explain subtleties of semantic entailment.
More informationLogic for Computer Science - Week 1 Introduction to Informal Logic
Logic for Computer Science - Week 1 Introduction to Informal Logic Ștefan Ciobâcă November 30, 2017 1 Propositions A proposition is a statement that can be true or false. Propositions are sometimes called
More informationResponse to Eklund 1 Elizabeth Barnes and JRG Williams
Response to Eklund 1 Elizabeth Barnes and JRG Williams Matti Eklund (this volume) raises interesting and important issues for our account of metaphysical indeterminacy. Eklund s criticisms are wide-ranging,
More informationRemarks on a Foundationalist Theory of Truth. Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh
For Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Remarks on a Foundationalist Theory of Truth Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh I Tim Maudlin s Truth and Paradox offers a theory of truth that arises from
More informationModule 5. Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Version 2 CSE IIT, Kharagpur
Module 5 Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Lesson 12 Propositional Logic inference rules 5.5 Rules of Inference Here are some examples of sound rules of inference. Each can be shown
More informationUC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016
Logical Consequence UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Intuitive characterizations of consequence Modal: It is necessary (or apriori) that, if the premises are true, the conclusion
More informationLOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010
LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010 LIBERALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE......RESPECT RIGOR NOT SO MUCH FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT AS A WAY OF SEEKING TRUTH. LOGIC PUZZLE COOPER IS MURDERED. 3 SUSPECTS: SMITH, JONES,
More informationHOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT
What does it mean to provide an argument for a statement? To provide an argument for a statement is an activity we carry out both in our everyday lives and within the sciences. We provide arguments for
More informationAn Introduction to. Formal Logic. Second edition. Peter Smith, February 27, 2019
An Introduction to Formal Logic Second edition Peter Smith February 27, 2019 Peter Smith 2018. Not for re-posting or re-circulation. Comments and corrections please to ps218 at cam dot ac dot uk 1 What
More informationJELIA Justification Logic. Sergei Artemov. The City University of New York
JELIA 2008 Justification Logic Sergei Artemov The City University of New York Dresden, September 29, 2008 This lecture outlook 1. What is Justification Logic? 2. Why do we need Justification Logic? 3.
More informationILLOCUTIONARY ORIGINS OF FAMILIAR LOGICAL OPERATORS
ILLOCUTIONARY ORIGINS OF FAMILIAR LOGICAL OPERATORS 1. ACTS OF USING LANGUAGE Illocutionary logic is the logic of speech acts, or language acts. Systems of illocutionary logic have both an ontological,
More informationDay 3. Wednesday May 23, Learn the basic building blocks of proofs (specifically, direct proofs)
Day 3 Wednesday May 23, 2012 Objectives: Learn the basics of Propositional Logic Learn the basic building blocks of proofs (specifically, direct proofs) 1 Propositional Logic Today we introduce the concepts
More informationArtificial Intelligence Prof. P. Dasgupta Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Artificial Intelligence Prof. P. Dasgupta Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture- 10 Inference in First Order Logic I had introduced first order
More informationAyer on the criterion of verifiability
Ayer on the criterion of verifiability November 19, 2004 1 The critique of metaphysics............................. 1 2 Observation statements............................... 2 3 In principle verifiability...............................
More informationSupervaluationism and Its Logics
Supervaluationism and Its Logics Achille C. Varzi Department of Philosophy, Columbia University (New York) [Final version published in Mind 116 (2007), 633-676] Abstract. If we adopt a supervaluational
More informationG. H. von Wright Deontic Logic
G. H. von Wright Deontic Logic Kian Mintz-Woo University of Amsterdam January 9, 2009 January 9, 2009 Logic of Norms 2010 1/17 INTRODUCTION In von Wright s 1951 formulation, deontic logic is intended to
More informationProof as a cluster concept in mathematical practice. Keith Weber Rutgers University
Proof as a cluster concept in mathematical practice Keith Weber Rutgers University Approaches for defining proof In the philosophy of mathematics, there are two approaches to defining proof: Logical or
More informationPHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE OVERVIEW LOGICAL CONSTANTS WEEK 5: MODEL-THEORETIC CONSEQUENCE JONNY MCINTOSH
PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE WEEK 5: MODEL-THEORETIC CONSEQUENCE JONNY MCINTOSH OVERVIEW Last week, I discussed various strands of thought about the concept of LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE, introducing Tarski's
More informationGod of the gaps: a neglected reply to God s stone problem
God of the gaps: a neglected reply to God s stone problem Jc Beall & A. J. Cotnoir January 1, 2017 Traditional monotheism has long faced logical puzzles (omniscience, omnipotence, and more) [10, 11, 13,
More informationCRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS
Fall 2001 ENGLISH 20 Professor Tanaka CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS In this first handout, I would like to simply give you the basic outlines of our critical thinking model
More informationIn Search of the Ontological Argument. Richard Oxenberg
1 In Search of the Ontological Argument Richard Oxenberg Abstract We can attend to the logic of Anselm's ontological argument, and amuse ourselves for a few hours unraveling its convoluted word-play, or
More informationAnnouncements. CS243: Discrete Structures. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Review of Last Lecture. Translating English into First-Order Logic
Announcements CS243: Discrete Structures First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Tuesday Işıl Dillig, CS243: Discrete
More informationReview: Stephen Schiffer, Th e Th i n g s We Me a n, Oxford University Press 2003
Review: Stephen Schiffer, The Things We Mean 1 Review: Stephen Schiffer, Th e Th i n g s We Me a n, Oxford University Press 2003 Stephen Schiffer s latest book is on the things we mean somewhat surprising,
More informationInternational Phenomenological Society
International Phenomenological Society The Semantic Conception of Truth: and the Foundations of Semantics Author(s): Alfred Tarski Source: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Mar.,
More informationVAGUENESS. For: Routledge companion to Philosophy of Language, ed. D. Fara and G. Russell.
VAGUENESS. For: Routledge companion to Philosophy of Language, ed. D. Fara and G. Russell. Abstract Taking away grains from a heap of rice, at what point is there no longer a heap? It seems small changes
More informationOn the Expected Utility Objection to the Dutch Book Argument for Probabilism
On the Expected Utility Objection to the Dutch Book Argument for Probabilism Richard Pettigrew July 18, 2018 Abstract The Dutch Book Argument for Probabilism assumes Ramsey s Thesis (RT), which purports
More information2.1 Review. 2.2 Inference and justifications
Applied Logic Lecture 2: Evidence Semantics for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Formal logic and evidence CS 4860 Fall 2012 Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2.1 Review The purpose of logic is to make reasoning
More informationDegrees of belief, expected and actual
Synthese (2017) 194:3789 3800 DOI 10.1007/s11229-016-1049-5 S.I.: VAGUENESS AND PROBABILITY Degrees of belief, expected and actual Rosanna Keefe 1 Received: 12 June 2014 / Accepted: 12 February 2016 /
More informationPredicate logic. Miguel Palomino Dpto. Sistemas Informáticos y Computación (UCM) Madrid Spain
Predicate logic Miguel Palomino Dpto. Sistemas Informáticos y Computación (UCM) 28040 Madrid Spain Synonyms. First-order logic. Question 1. Describe this discipline/sub-discipline, and some of its more
More informationIntersubstitutivity Principles and the Generalization Function of Truth. Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh. Shawn Standefer University of Melbourne
Intersubstitutivity Principles and the Generalization Function of Truth Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh Shawn Standefer University of Melbourne Abstract We offer a defense of one aspect of Paul Horwich
More informationA Liar Paradox. Richard G. Heck, Jr. Brown University
A Liar Paradox Richard G. Heck, Jr. Brown University It is widely supposed nowadays that, whatever the right theory of truth may be, it needs to satisfy a principle sometimes known as transparency : Any
More informationKing and Kitchener Packet 3 King and Kitchener: The Reflective Judgment Model
: The Reflective Judgment Model Patricia Margaret Brown King: Director, Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan Karen Strohm Kitchener Professor in the Counseling
More informationVarieties of Vagueness*
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXII, No. 1, January 2001 Varieties of Vagueness* TRENTON MERRICKS Virginia Commonwealth University According to one account, vagueness is metaphysical. The
More informationCONTENTS A SYSTEM OF LOGIC
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION NOTE ON THE TEXT. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY XV xlix I /' ~, r ' o>
More informationMISSOURI S FRAMEWORK FOR CURRICULAR DEVELOPMENT IN MATH TOPIC I: PROBLEM SOLVING
Prentice Hall Mathematics:,, 2004 Missouri s Framework for Curricular Development in Mathematics (Grades 9-12) TOPIC I: PROBLEM SOLVING 1. Problem-solving strategies such as organizing data, drawing a
More informationLogic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE
CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE Section 1. A Mediate Inference is a proposition that depends for proof upon two or more other propositions, so connected together by one or
More informationSqueezing arguments. Peter Smith. May 9, 2010
Squeezing arguments Peter Smith May 9, 2010 Many of our concepts are introduced to us via, and seem only to be constrained by, roughand-ready explanations and some sample paradigm positive and negative
More informationSemantic Foundations for Deductive Methods
Semantic Foundations for Deductive Methods delineating the scope of deductive reason Roger Bishop Jones Abstract. The scope of deductive reason is considered. First a connection is discussed between the
More informationEntailment as Plural Modal Anaphora
Entailment as Plural Modal Anaphora Adrian Brasoveanu SURGE 09/08/2005 I. Introduction. Meaning vs. Content. The Partee marble examples: - (1 1 ) and (2 1 ): different meanings (different anaphora licensing
More information