对奇点论的反驳?

Salvatore Florio, Øystein Linnebo
{"title":"对奇点论的反驳?","authors":"Salvatore Florio, Øystein Linnebo","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198791522.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditional analyses of plurals tended to eliminate plural expressions in favor of singular ones. These “singularist” analyses have recently faced many objections, which are intended to provide indirect support for the alternative analysis provided by plural logic. This chapter evaluates four such objections and concludes that they are less compelling than is often assumed. This conclusion is borne out by a close examination of various plural versions of Cantor’s theorem.","PeriodicalId":232985,"journal":{"name":"The Many and the One","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Refutation of Singularism?\",\"authors\":\"Salvatore Florio, Øystein Linnebo\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198791522.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Traditional analyses of plurals tended to eliminate plural expressions in favor of singular ones. These “singularist” analyses have recently faced many objections, which are intended to provide indirect support for the alternative analysis provided by plural logic. This chapter evaluates four such objections and concludes that they are less compelling than is often assumed. This conclusion is borne out by a close examination of various plural versions of Cantor’s theorem.\",\"PeriodicalId\":232985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Many and the One\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Many and the One\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791522.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Many and the One","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791522.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

传统的复数分析倾向于消除复数表达,而倾向于使用单数表达。这些“单一性”分析最近面临许多反对意见,其目的是为多元逻辑提供的替代分析提供间接支持。本章评估了四种这样的反对意见,并得出结论,它们并不像人们通常认为的那样令人信服。这一结论是由康托尔定理的各种复数版本的仔细检查所证实的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Refutation of Singularism?
Traditional analyses of plurals tended to eliminate plural expressions in favor of singular ones. These “singularist” analyses have recently faced many objections, which are intended to provide indirect support for the alternative analysis provided by plural logic. This chapter evaluates four such objections and concludes that they are less compelling than is often assumed. This conclusion is borne out by a close examination of various plural versions of Cantor’s theorem.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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