Operands and instances

Journal article

Fritz, Peter. (2023). Operands and instances. The Review of Symbolic Logic. 16(1), pp. 188-209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175502032100040X
AuthorsFritz, Peter
Abstract

Can conjunctive propositions be identical without their conjuncts being identical? Can universally quantified propositions be identical without their instances being identical? On a common conception of propositions, on which they inherit the logical structure of the sentences which express them, the answer is negative both times. Here, it will be shown that such a negative answer to both questions is inconsistent, assuming a standard type-theoretic formalization of theorizing about propositions. The result is not specific to conjunction and universal quantification, but applies to any binary operator and propositional quantifier. It is also shown that the result essentially arises out of giving a negative answer to both questions, as each negative answer is consistent by itself.

Keywordsstructured propositions; logical structure; higher-order logic; propositional quantifiers
Year2023
JournalThe Review of Symbolic Logic
Journal citation16 (1), pp. 188-209
PublisherCambridge University Press
ISSN1755-0203
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1017/S175502032100040X
Scopus EID2-s2.0-85114331848
Open accessPublished as ‘gold’ (paid) open access
Page range188-209
Publisher's version
License
File Access Level
Open
Output statusPublished
Publication dates
OnlineMar 2023
Publication process dates
Deposited22 Feb 2023
Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/8yv83/operands-and-instances

Log in to edit

Download files

Publisher's version
OA_Fritz_2013_Operands_and_instances.pdf
License: CC BY 4.0
File access level: Open

  • 73
    total views
  • 35
    total downloads
  • 3
    views this month
  • 1
    downloads this month
These values are for the period from 19th October 2020, when this repository was created.

Export as

Related outputs

Being somehow without (possibly) being something
Fritz, Peter. (2023). Being somehow without (possibly) being something. Mind. 132(526), pp. 348-371. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzac052
Axiomatizability of propositionally quantified modal logics on relational frames
Fritz, Peter. (2022). Axiomatizability of propositionally quantified modal logics on relational frames. The Journal of Symbolic Logic. pp. 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsl.2022.79
Ground and grain
Fritz, Peter. (2022). Ground and grain. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 105(2), pp. 299-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12822
Closed structure
Fritz, Peter, Lederman, Harvey and Uzquiano, Gabriel. (2021). Closed structure. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 50, pp. 1249-1291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-021-09598-5
On Stalnaker’s Simple Theory of Propositions
Fritz, Peter. (2021). On Stalnaker’s Simple Theory of Propositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 50, pp. 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-020-09557-6
On higher-order logical grounds
Fritz, Peter. (2020). On higher-order logical grounds. Analysis. 80(4), p. 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anz085
Propositional quantification in Bimodal S5
Fritz, Peter. (2020). Propositional quantification in Bimodal S5. Erkenntnis. 85, pp. 455 - 465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0035-3
Operator arguments revisited
Fritz, Peter, Hawthorne, John and Yli-Vakkuri, Juhani. (2019). Operator arguments revisited. Philosophical Studies. 176(11), pp. 2933 - 2959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1158-8
Higher-Order contingentism, Part 2: Patterns of indistinguishability
Fritz, Peter. (2018). Higher-Order contingentism, Part 2: Patterns of indistinguishability. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 47(3), pp. 407 - 418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-017-9432-3
Can modalities save naive set theory?
Fritz, Peter, Lederman, Harvey, Liu, Tiankai and Scott, Dana. (2018). Can modalities save naive set theory? Review of Symbolic Logic. 11(1), pp. 21 - 47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020317000168
Higher-Order contingentism, Part 3: Expressive limitations
Fritz, Peter. (2018). Higher-Order contingentism, Part 3: Expressive limitations. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 47(4), pp. 649 - 671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-017-9443-0
Logics for propositional contingentism
Fritz, Peter. (2017). Logics for propositional contingentism. The Review of Symbolic Logic. 10(2), pp. 203 - 236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020317000028
A purely recombinatorial puzzle
Fritz, Peter. (2017). A purely recombinatorial puzzle. Noûs. 51(3), pp. 547 - 564. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12172
Counting incompossibles
Fritz, Peter and Goodman, Jeremy. (2017). Counting incompossibles. Mind. 126(504), pp. 1063 - 1108. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzw026
Counterfactuals and propositional contingentism
Fritz, Peter and Goodman, Jeremy. (2017). Counterfactuals and propositional contingentism. Review of Symbolic Logic. 10(3), pp. 509 - 529. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020317000144
Propositional contingentism
Fritz, Peter. (2016). Propositional contingentism. Review of Symbolic Logic. 9(1), pp. 123 - 142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020315000325
Higher-Order contingentism, Part 1: Closure and generation
Fritz, Peter and Goodman, Jeremy. (2016). Higher-Order contingentism, Part 1: Closure and generation. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 45(6), pp. 645 - 695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-015-9388-0
First-order modal logic in the necessary framework of objects
Fritz, Peter. (2016). First-order modal logic in the necessary framework of objects. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 46(4-5), pp. 584 - 609. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2015.1132976
What is the correct logic of necessity, actuality and apriority?
Peter Fritz. (2014). What is the correct logic of necessity, actuality and apriority? Review of Symbolic Logic. 7(3), pp. 385-414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020314000136