透明内涵逻辑中的替换不一致

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2021-09-29 DOI:10.1080/11663081.2021.1982553

Miloš Kosterec

{"title":"透明内涵逻辑中的替换不一致","authors":"Miloš Kosterec","doi":"10.1080/11663081.2021.1982553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents several important results for Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL). The conversions that are standardly taken to be valid – namely restricted β-conversion by name and β-reduction by value – are shown to be invalid. The core principle on which their validity is based – the so-called Compensation Principle – is also shown to be invalid. Further, the paper demonstrates the flaws of the proof of the Compensation Principle.","PeriodicalId":38573,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics","volume":"120 1","pages":"355 - 371"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Substitution inconsistencies in Transparent Intensional Logic\",\"authors\":\"Miloš Kosterec\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/11663081.2021.1982553\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper presents several important results for Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL). The conversions that are standardly taken to be valid – namely restricted β-conversion by name and β-reduction by value – are shown to be invalid. The core principle on which their validity is based – the so-called Compensation Principle – is also shown to be invalid. Further, the paper demonstrates the flaws of the proof of the Compensation Principle.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics\",\"volume\":\"120 1\",\"pages\":\"355 - 371\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2021.1982553\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2021.1982553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文给出了透明内涵逻辑(TIL)的几个重要结果。标准上被认为有效的转换——即按名称限制的β-转换和按值减少的β-转换——被证明是无效的。其有效性所依据的核心原则- -所谓的补偿原则- -也被证明是无效的。在此基础上，进一步论证了补偿原则证明的缺陷。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Substitution inconsistencies in Transparent Intensional Logic

This paper presents several important results for Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL). The conversions that are standardly taken to be valid – namely restricted β-conversion by name and β-reduction by value – are shown to be invalid. The core principle on which their validity is based – the so-called Compensation Principle – is also shown to be invalid. Further, the paper demonstrates the flaws of the proof of the Compensation Principle.

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

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量