Prawitz's completeness conjecture: A reassessment

IF 0.6 3区 哲学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
THEORIA Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1111/theo.12541
Peter Schroeder‐Heister
{"title":"Prawitz's completeness conjecture: A reassessment","authors":"Peter Schroeder‐Heister","doi":"10.1111/theo.12541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1973, Dag Prawitz conjectured that the calculus of intuitionistic logic is complete with respect to his notion of validity of arguments. On the background of the recent disproof of this conjecture by Piecha, de Campos Sanz and Schroeder‐Heister, we discuss possible strategies of saving Prawitz's intentions. We argue that Prawitz's original semantics, which is based on the principal frame of all atomic systems, should be replaced with a general semantics, which also takes into account restricted frames of atomic systems. We discard the option of not considering extensions of atomic systems, but acknowledge the need to incorporate definitional atomic bases in the semantic framework. It turns out that ideas and results by Westerståhl on the Carnap categoricity of intuitionistic logic can be applied to Prawitz semantics. This implies that Prawitz semantics has a status of its own as a genuine, though incomplete, semantics of intuitionstic logic. An interesting side result is the fact that every formula satisfiable in general semantics is satisfiable in an axioms‐only frame (a frame whose atomic systems do not contain proper rules). We draw a parallel between this seemingly paradoxical result and Skolem's paradox in first‐order model theory.","PeriodicalId":44638,"journal":{"name":"THEORIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEORIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12541","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1973, Dag Prawitz conjectured that the calculus of intuitionistic logic is complete with respect to his notion of validity of arguments. On the background of the recent disproof of this conjecture by Piecha, de Campos Sanz and Schroeder‐Heister, we discuss possible strategies of saving Prawitz's intentions. We argue that Prawitz's original semantics, which is based on the principal frame of all atomic systems, should be replaced with a general semantics, which also takes into account restricted frames of atomic systems. We discard the option of not considering extensions of atomic systems, but acknowledge the need to incorporate definitional atomic bases in the semantic framework. It turns out that ideas and results by Westerståhl on the Carnap categoricity of intuitionistic logic can be applied to Prawitz semantics. This implies that Prawitz semantics has a status of its own as a genuine, though incomplete, semantics of intuitionstic logic. An interesting side result is the fact that every formula satisfiable in general semantics is satisfiable in an axioms‐only frame (a frame whose atomic systems do not contain proper rules). We draw a parallel between this seemingly paradoxical result and Skolem's paradox in first‐order model theory.
普拉维茨的完备性猜想:重新评估
1973 年,达格-普劳维茨猜想,就他的论证有效性概念而言,直觉逻辑的微积分是完整的。最近,皮查(Piecha)、德坎波斯-桑兹(de Campos Sanz)和施罗德-海斯特(Schroeder-Heister)推翻了这一猜想,在此背景下,我们讨论了挽救普拉维茨意图的可能策略。我们认为,普拉维茨最初的语义学是建立在所有原子系统的主框架基础上的,应该用一种也考虑到原子系统受限框架的一般语义学来取代。我们放弃了不考虑原子系统扩展的选择,但承认有必要将定义原子基础纳入语义框架。事实证明,韦斯特施陶尔关于直观逻辑的卡纳普分类性的观点和结果可以应用于普拉维茨语义学。这意味着普拉维茨语义学作为直观逻辑的真正语义学(尽管不完整)具有自己的地位。一个有趣的附带结果是,在一般语义学中每一个可满足的公式在纯公理框架(其原子系统不包含适当规则的框架)中都是可满足的。我们将这一看似悖论的结果与一阶模型理论中的斯科勒姆悖论相提并论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
THEORIA
THEORIA SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1935, Theoria publishes research in all areas of philosophy. Theoria is committed to precision and clarity in philosophical discussions, and encourages cooperation between philosophy and other disciplines. The journal is not affiliated with any particular school or faction. Instead, it promotes dialogues between different philosophical viewpoints. Theoria is peer-reviewed. It publishes articles, reviews, and shorter notes and discussions. Short discussion notes on recent articles in Theoria are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信