Theodore Hailperin. Quantification theory and empty individual domains. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 18 (1953), pp. 197–200. - W.V. Quine. Quantification and the empty domain. Ibid., vol. 19 (1954), pp. 177–179.

1955 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 284-284
Author(s):  
John Myhill
Keyword(s):  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Quantification Theory

A system of implicit quantification

1968 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 480-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Jay Zeman
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Traditional Method ◽  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Propositional Calculus ◽  
Axiom System ◽  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Quantification Theory ◽  
The Subject

The “traditional” method of presenting the subject-matter of symbolic logic involves setting down, first of all, a basis for a propositional calculus—which basis might be a system of natural deduction, an axiom system, or a rule concerning tautologous formulas. The next step, ordinarily, consists of the introduction of quantifiers into the symbol-set of the system, and the stating of axioms or rules for quantification. In this paper I shall propose a system somewhat different from the ordinary; this system has rules for quantification and is, indeed, equivalent to classical quantification theory. It departs from the usual, however, in that it has no primitive quantifiers.

2004 Spring Meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 438-446
Author(s):  
Michael Kremer
Keyword(s):  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Spring Meeting

Association for Symbolic Logic

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-558
Keyword(s):  
Symbolic Logic

European Summer Meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic, Helsinki, 1990

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 1115-1150
Keyword(s):  
Symbolic Logic

2008 Annual Meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 418-437
Author(s):  
Chris Laskowski
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Symbolic Logic

2008–2009 Winter Meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-245
Author(s):  
Ali Enayat
Keyword(s):  
Symbolic Logic

2010–2011 Winter Meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-149
Author(s):  
Michael Mislove
Keyword(s):  
Symbolic Logic

Algebra

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Henderson
Keyword(s):  
Euclidean Geometry ◽  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Associative Networks ◽  
Aristotelian Logic ◽  
Modern Algebra ◽  
Symbolic Systems ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Founding Principle ◽  
Conventional Symbol

The difference between the transcendent Coleridgean symbol and the unreliable conventional symbol was of explicit concern in Victorian mathematics, where the former was aligned with Euclidean geometry and the latter with algebra. Rather than trying to bridge this divide, practitioners of modern algebra and the pioneers of symbolic logic made it the founding principle of their work. Regarding the content of claims as a matter of “indifference,” they concerned themselves solely with the formal interrelations of the symbolic systems devised to represent those claims. In its celebration of artificial algorithmic structures, symbolic logician Lewis Carroll’s Sylvie and Bruno dramatizes the power of this new formalist ideal not only to revitalize the moribund field of Aristotelian logic but also to redeem symbolism itself, conceived by Carroll and his mathematical, philosophical, and symbolist contemporaries as a set of harmonious associative networks rather than singular organic correspondences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document