As of May 31, 2023, we have updated our Code of Conduct.

Questions tagged [free-logic]

For questions about logic that do not require the objects in the domain of quantification to "exist". The adjective "free" is used in contrast to the adjective "classical".

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
3 votes
1 answer
95 views

Questions on Precise Meaning of Quine's Ontological Commitment Criterion

In a recent paper Ontological Commitment, Augustin Rayo tries to make the notion of ontological commitment more precise. He specifies: "Quine’s Criterion (Logical Version) A first-order ...
PwNzDust's user avatar
  • 395
2 votes
1 answer
108 views

Variant of free logic that accepts domain emptiness but rejects non-referring terms

To my naive perspective, domains that might be empty and terms that fail to denote (via constant symbols that don't refer or partial functions) feel radically different. The former seems ordinary and ...
Greg Nisbet's user avatar
  • 1,024
2 votes
0 answers
81 views

Does ◻(∀x)[Px ≡ ◻(E!x → Qx)] and ◻(∀x)(Qx → ◻E!x) entail ◻(∀x){Px ≡ ◻[E!x & (E!x → Qx)]}?

Say we are working in a free quantified modal logic system S5. Would the following argument be valid: ◻(∀x)[Px ≡ ◻(E!x → Qx)] (Premise) ◻(∀x)(Qx → ◻E!x) (Premise) ◻(∀x){Px ≡ ◻[E!x & (E!x → Qx)]}...
James McGraw's user avatar
2 votes
2 answers
207 views

Does ◻(∀x)(Fx ⊃ ◻(E!x & (E!x ⊃ Fx))) entail ◻((∃x)Fx ⊃ ◻(∃x)Fx)?

I was wondering if we can derive ◻((∃x)Fx ⊃ ◻(∃x)Fx) from ◻(∀x)(Fx ⊃ ◻(E!x & (E!x ⊃ Fx)))? (By the way 'E!' is the existence predicate.) I am using the Quantified Free Modal Logic constructed/...
James McGraw's user avatar
2 votes
1 answer
216 views

What does "E!" mean in free logic?

Reading John Nolt's "Free Logic" article I see the symbol "E!" in the "2.1 Axiom Systems". The following axioms are special for free logics. (A4) ∀xA→(E!t→A(t/x)) (A5) ...
Frank Hubeny's user avatar
  • 19.1k