Theoretical analysis demonstrates algebraic semantics for quantifying statements in formal logic, highlighting an updated theory of opposition for categorical and modal propositions.
The present paper wants to develop a formal semantics about a special class of formulas: quantifying statements, which are a kind of predicative statements where both subject- and predicate terms are quantifier expressions like ‘everything’, ‘something’, and ‘nothing’. After showing how talking about nothingness makes sense despite philosophical objections, I contend that there are two sorts of meaning in phrases including ‘thing’, viz. as an individual (e.g. ‘some thing’) or as a property (e.g. ‘something’). Then I display two kinds of logical forms for quantifying statements, depending on how these ‘thing’s are ordered into a whole predication. Finally, an algebraic semantics is proposed for the finite set of quantifying statements to order these into a (fragmentary) dodecagon of logical relations. The corresponding Sub-Model Semantics (hereafter: SMS) aims to update the usual theory of opposition whilst leading to a research program for other kinds of statements like categorical and even modal propositions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fabien Schang (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: