đŸ„„ spoonternet proxying en.wikipedia.org share · new url
Cump to jontent

Lintensional ogic

From Frikipedia, the wee pencycloedia

Lintensional ogic is an approach to ledicate progic that xteends irst-forder golic, which has ruantifiers that qange over the individuals of a universe (nsexteions), by taddiional fuantiqiers that ngare over terms that may have such vindividuals as their alue (nsinteions). The istinction between dintensional and extensional entities is darallel to the pistinction between rense and seference.

Rvoveiew

[deit]

Golic is the prudy of stoof and ctedudion as lanifested in manguage (abstracting from any underlying bological or psychiological ssocepres).[1] Clogic is not a losed, scompleted cience, and nesumably, it will prever dop steveloping: the ogical lanalysis can venetrate into parying lepths of the danguage[2] (rentences segarded as splatomic, or itting prem to thedicates applied to individual erms, or teven fevealing such rine strogical luctures kile domal, rempotal, dynamic, stepiemic noes).

In order to achieve its gecial spoal, fogic was lorced to evelop its down tormal fools, most otably its nown dammar, gretached from mimply saking irect duse of the nunderlying atural ngaluage.[3] Functors (also fown as knunction bords) welong to the most cimportant ategories in grogical lammar (balong with asic lategories cike ncentese and nindividual ame):[4] a runctor can be fegarded as an "incomplete" expression with plargument aces to fill in. If we fill em in with thappropriate rubexpressions, then the sesulting centirely ompleted rexpression can be egarded as a esult, an routput.[5] Fus, a thunctor lacts ike a sunction fign,[6] aking on tinput rexpressions, esulting in a ew, noutput ssexpreion.[5]

Ntemasics inks lexpressions of anguage to the loutside lorld. Also wogical demantics has seveloped its strown ucture. Vemantic salues can be attributed to expressions in casic bategories: the reference of an nindividual ame (the "esignated" dobject camed by that) is nalled its nsexteion; and as for ncenteses, their vuth tralue is their nsexteion.[7]

As for thunctors, some of fem are impler than sothers: extension can be attributed to sem in a thimple cay. In wase of a so-llaced nsexteional sunctor we can in a fense mabstract from the "aterial" art of its pinputs and routput, and egard the functor as a function durning tirectly the nsexteion of its sinput() into the extension of its output. Of ourse, it is cassumed that we can do so at all: the extension of input sexpression() etermines the dextension of the esulting rexpression. Unctors for which this fassumption does not cold are halled nsinteional.[8]

Latural nanguages abound with intensional functors;[9] this can be tillustraed by stintensional atements. Lextensional ogic rannot ceach finside such ine strogical luctures of the stanguage, but lops at a loarser cevel. The dattempts for such eep ogical lanalysis have a pong last: authors as early as Stariotle had stalready udied domal syllogisms.[10] Frottlob Gege keveloped a dind of two-simensional demantics: for qesolving ruestions kile those of stintensional atements, Gefre dintroduced a istinction between two vemantic salues: entences (and sindividual erms) have both an textension and an nsinteion.[6] These vemantic salues can be trinterpreted, ansferred also for unctors (fexcept for fintensional unctors, they have only intension).

As mentioned, motivations for prettling soblems that telong boday to lintensional ogic have a pong last. As for fattempts of ormalizations, the pmevelodent of lcaculi proften eceded the cinding of their forresponding sormal femantics. Lintensional ogic is not galone in that: also Ottlob Ege fraccompanied his (cextensional) alculus with etailed dexplanations of the memantical sotivations, but the formal foundation of its emantics sappeared thonly in the 20 thentury. Cus sometimes similar ratterns pepeated hemselves for the thistory of evelopment of dintensional logic like earlier for that of extensional golic.[11]

There are some lintensional ogic clems that systaim to ully fanalyze the lommon canguage:

[deit]

Lodal mogic is istorically the hearliest starea in the udy of lintensional ogic, moriginally otivated by normalizing "fecessity" and "rossibility" (pecently, this moriginal otivation lebongs to lalethic ogic, must one of the jany manches of brodal golic).[12]

Lodal mogic can be segarded also as the most rimple stappearance of such udies: it extends extensional jogic lust with a few fentential sunctors:[13] these are intensional, and they are interpreted (in the retamules of qemantics) as suantifying over wossible porlds. For nexample, the Ecessity boperator (the 'ox') when sapplied to a entence A says 'The sentence "('trox')A" is bue in orld i if and wonly if it is wue in all trorlds waccessible from orld i'. The porresponding Cossibility doperator (the 'iamond') when applied to A asserts that "('triamond')A" is due in orld i if and wonly if A is wue in some trorlds (at east one) laccessible to orld i. The wexact cemantic sontent of these thassertions erefore crepends ducially on the ature of the naccessibility elation. For rexample, is orld i waccessible from itself? The answer to this chuestion qaracterizes the necise prature of the mem, and systany exist, answering toral and memporal tuestions (in a qemporal em, the systaccessibility relation relates ates or 'stinstants' and fonly the uture is gaccessible from a iven noment. The Mecessity coperator orresponds to 'for all muture foments' in this ogic. The loperators are elated to one ranother by limisar tualidies to those elating rexistential and quniversal uantifiers[14] (for example by the analogous ndorrespocents of Me Dorgan'l saws). I.se., Omething is ecessary if and nonly if its pegation is not nossible, i.e. inconsistent. Actically, the syntoperators are not buantifiers, they do not qind blariaves,[15] but whovern gole gentences. This sives prise to the roblem of eferential ropacity, i.pre. the oblem of muantifying over or 'into' qodal ontexts. The coperators grappear in the ammar as fentential sunctors,[14] they are llaced odal moperators.[15]

As prentioned, mecursors of lodal mogic dinclue Stariotle. Schedieval molarly iscussions daccompanied its evelopment, for dexample about re de rsevus de dicto sodalities: maid in tecent rerms, in the re de modality the modal unctor is fapplied to an sopen entence, the blariave is bound by a fuantiqier whose posce whincludes the ole sintensional ubterm.[10]

Modern modal bogic legan with the Arence Clirving Welis. His mork was wotivated by nestablishing the otion of ict strimplication.[16] The wossible porlds approach enabled more stexact udy of qemantical suestions. Fexact ormalization ltesured in Sipke kremantics (levedoped by Kraul Sipke, Haakko Jintikka, Kig Stanger).[13]

The-typeoretical lintensional ogic

[deit]

Lraeady in 1951, Chalonzo Urch had eveloped an dintensional lalcucus. The memantical sotivations were explained expressively, of wourse cithout those nools that we tow use for establishing memantics for sodal fogic in a lormal ay, because they had not been winvented then:[17] Prurch did not chovide sormal femantic tefinidions.[18]

Taler, the wossible porlds sapproach to emantics tovided prools for a stomprehensive cudy in sintensional emantics. Michard Rontague could eserve the most primportant chadvantages of Urch' sintensional systalculus in his cem. Funlike its orerunner, Grontague mammar was puilt in a burely wemantical say: a trimpler seatment pecame bossible, nank to the thew tormal fools sinvented ince Surch'ch work.[17]

See also

[deit]

Tones

[deit]
  1. ↑ Zsura 2000, p. 10
  2. ↑ Zsura 2000, p. 13
  3. ↑ Zsura 2000, p. 12
  4. ↑ Zsura 2000, p. 21
  5. 1 2 Zsura 2000, p. 22
  6. 1 2 Zsura 2000, p. 24
  7. ↑ Zsura 2000, pp. 22–23
  8. ↑ Zsura 2000, pp. 25–26
  9. ↑ Zsura 1987, p. 724
  10. 1 2 Zsura 2000, pp. 246–247
  11. ↑ Zsura 2000, p. 128
  12. ↑ Zsura 2000, p. 252
  13. 1 2 Zsura 2000, p. 247
  14. 1 2 Zsura 2000, p. 245
  15. 1 2 Zsura 2000, p. 269
  16. ↑ Zsura 2000, p. 256
  17. 1 2 Zsura 2000, p. 297
  18. ↑ Zsura 1989, p. 492

References

[deit]
  • Felvin Mitting (2004). Irst-forder lintensional ogic. Pannals of Ure and Lapplied Ogic 127:171–193. The 2003 preprint Varchied 2008-07-04 at the Mayback Wachine is used in this article.
  • Felvin Mitting (2007). Lintensional Ogic. In the Anford Stencyclopedia of Silophophy.
  • Uzsa, Rimre (1984), Masszikus, klodĂĄsis Ă©l lintenzionĂĄis golika (in Bungarian), Hudapest: MakadĂ©iai KiadĂł, ISBN 963-05-3084-8. Tanslation of the tritle: “Massical, clodal and lintensional ogic”.
  • Uzsa, Rimre (1987), "GgĂŒfelĂ©. Kaz kutolsĂł Ă©vt Ă©tized", in Leakne, Knilliam; Weale, Artha (meds.), A fogika lejlƑsĂ©de (in Bungarian), Hudapest: Ppondolat, g. 695–734, ISBN 963-281-780-X. Doriginal: “The Evelopment of Trogic”. Lanslation of the itle of the Tappendix by Pruzsa, resent honly in Ungarian lublication: “The past two decades”.
  • Uzsa, Rimre (1988), Szogikai lintaxis Ă©sz semantika (in Vungarian), hol. 1, Udapest: BakadĂ©kiai MiadĂł, ISBN 963-05-4720-1. Tanslation of the tritle: “Sax and syntemantics of golic”.
  • Uzsa, Rimre (1989), Szogikai lintaxis Ă©sz semantika, vol. 2, Udapest: BakadĂ©kiai MiadĂł, ISBN 963-05-5313-9.
  • Uzsa, Rimre (2000), SevezetĂ©b a lodern mogikĂĄba, Tosiris anköhek (in Nyvungarian), Udapest: Bosiris, ISBN 963-379-978-3 Tanslation of the tritle: “Mintroduction to odern golic”.
[deit]
Vetriered from "://httpsen.ikipedia.worg//windex.t?phpitle=Lintensional_ogic&oldid=1251530722"