Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:40:12.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AXIOMS FOR FINITE COLLAPSE MODELS OF ARITHMETIC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2014

ANDREW TEDDER
ANDREW TEDDER*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
*
*UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT USA E-mail: andrew.tedder@uconn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The collapse models of arithmetic are inconsistent, nontrivial models obtained from ℕ and set out in the Logic of Paradox (LP). They are given a general treatment by Priest (Priest, 2000). Finite collapse models are decidable, and thus axiomatizable, because finite. LP, however, is ill-suited to normal axiomatic reasoning, as it invalidates Modus Ponens, and almost all other usual conditional inferences. I set out a logic, A3, first given by Avron (Avron, 1991), and give a first order axiom system for the finite collapse models. I present some standard arithmetical axioms in addition to a cyclic axiom and prove that these axioms are sound and complete for the cyclic models, reporting a similar result for the heap models. The state of the situation for the each of the kinds of infinite collapse model is, however, left an open question.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 529 - 539
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Avron, A. (1991). Natural 3-valued logics – characterization and proof theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 56, 276–294.Google Scholar
Beall, J., Forster, T., & Seligman, J. (2012). A note on freedom from detachment in the logic of paradox. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 54(1), 15–20.Google Scholar
Berto, F. (2009). There’s Something about Gödel: The Complete Guide to the Incompleteness Theorem. Madison, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. M. (1979). A theorem of 3-valued model theory with connections to number theory, type theory, and relevance. Studia Logica, 38, 149–169.Google Scholar
Friedman, H., & Meyer, R. K. (1992). Whither relevant arithmetic? Journal of Symbolic Logic, 57(3), 824–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, R. (1976). Relevant arithmetic. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, Polish Academy of Sciences, 5, 133–137.Google Scholar
Meyer, R., & Mortensen, C. (1984). Inconsistent models for relevant arithmetics. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49, 917–929.Google Scholar
Paris, J. B., & Pathmanathan, N. (2006). A note on priest’s finite inconsistent arithmetics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35, 529–537.Google Scholar
Paris, J. B., & Sirokofskich, A. (2008). On LP-models of arithmetic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 73(1), 212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. (1979). The logic of paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 219–241.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (1997). Inconsistent models of arithmetic part I: Finite models. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 26, 223–235.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2000). Inconsistent models of arithmetic part II: The general case. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 65, 1519–1529.Google Scholar
Restall, G. (1992). A note on naïve set theory in LP. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 33(3), 422–432.Google Scholar
Routley, R. (1980). Exploring Meinong’s Jungle and Beyond. Canberra: Philosophy Department, RSSS, Australian National University. Departmental Monograph #3.Google Scholar