FOM: second-order logic is a myth
csilver at sophia.smith.edu
Sun Mar 21 07:32:23 EST 1999
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On re-reading Simpson's messages, I think that there has been some
> mutual confusion on purely terminological matters. There are several
> distinct things to consider:...[(1) has been deleted], (2) a formal
> logic, which is this language plus suitable rules of inference including
> abstraction and application of lambda-expressions denoting relations,
> sufficient to conclude the existence of a relation expressed by any
> appropriate wellformed expression in the language.
To Pat Hayes:
I would be better able to appreciate the different points of view
in this controversy if I could see a couple of these inference rules
written out. Could you please provide that?
More information about the FOM