Carl G. Hempel. A purely topological form of non-Aristotelian logic. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 2 (1937), pp. 97–112.

1938 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-92
Author(s):  
Paul Bernays
Author(s):  
Andrea Henderson

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.


1937 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 97-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl G. Hempel

1. The problem. The aim of the following considerations is to introduce a new type of non-Aristotelian logic by generalizing the truth-table methods so far employed for establishing non-Aristotelian sentential calculi. We shall expound the intended generalization by applying it to the particular set of pluri-valued systems introduced by J. Łukasiewicz. One will remark that the points of view illustrated by this example may serve to generalize quite analogously any other plurivalued systems, such as those originated by E. L. Post, by H. Reichenbach, and by others.2. J. Łukasiewicz's plurivalued systems of sentential logic. First of all, we consider briefly the structure of the Łukasiewicz systems themselves.As to the symbolic notation in which to represent those systems, we make the following agreements: For representing the expressions of the (two- or plurivalued) calculus of sentences, we make use of the Principia mathematica symbolism; however, we employ brackets instead of dots. We call the small italic letters “p”, “q”, “r”, … sentential variables or elementary sentences, and employ the term “sentence” as a general designation of both elementary sentences and the composites made up of elementary sentences and connective symbols (“~”, “ν” “.”, “⊃” “≡”).Now, the different possible sentences (or, properly speaking, the different possible shapes of sentences, such as “p”, “p∨q”, “~p.(q∨ r)”, etc.) are the objects to which truth-values are ascribed; and just as in every other case one wants a designation for an object in order to be able to speak of it, we want now a system of designations for the sentences with which we are going to deal in our truth-table considerations.


Elements ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Sheridan

The analytic tradition in philosophy stems from the work of German mathematician and logician Gottlob Frege. Bertrand Russell brough Frege's program to render language-particularly scientific language-in formal logical terms to the forefront of philosophy in the early twentieth century. The quest to clarify language and parse out genuine philosophical problems remains a cornerstone of analytic philosophy, but investigative programs involving the broad application of formal symbolic logic to language have largely been abandoned due to the influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein's later work. This article identifies the key philosophical moves that must be performed successfully in order for Frege's "conceptual notation" and other similar systems to adequately capture syntax and semantics. These moves ultimately fail as a result of the nature of linguistic meaning. The shift away from formal logical analysis of language and the emergence of the current analytic style becomes clearer when this failure is examined critically.


1986 ◽  
Vol 25 (18) ◽  
pp. 3329-3330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger L. DeKock ◽  
Remo Dutler ◽  
Arvi Rauk ◽  
Roger D. Van Zee
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document