Is Transparent Intensional Logic a non-classical logic?
Languages of publication
It is shown that: (a) classicality is connected with various criteria some of which are fulfilled by TIL while some other are not; (b) some more general characteristic of classicality connects it with philosophical realism whereas (radical) anti-realism is connected with non-classical logics; (c) TIL is highly expressive due to its hyperintensionality, which makes it possible to handle procedures as objects sui generis. Thus TIL is classical in obeying principles of realism and non-classical in transcending some principles taught by textbooks of classical logic.
- Banks, P., 1950, “On the philosophical interpretation of logic: an Aristotelian dialogue”, pages 139–153 in Dominican Studies, Oxford, III/2. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-3649-8_1
- Bealer, G., 1982, Quality and Concept, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Carnap, R., 1947, Meaning and Necessity, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
- Carnap, R., 1950, Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
- Dummett, M., 1991, The Logica Basis of Metaphysics, London, G. Duckworth.
- Duží, M., 2003, “Do we have to deal with partiality?”, pages 45–76 in Miscellanea Logica, vol. 5, K. Bendová and P. Jirků (eds.), Praha: Karolinum.
- Duží, M., B. Jespersen and P. Materna, 2010, Procedural Semantics for Hyperintiensional Logic, Springer.
- Kolmogorov, A., 1932, “Zur Deutung der intuitionistischen Logik”, Mathematische Zeitschrift, 35: 58–65. DOI: 10.1007/BF01186549
- Strawson, P.F., 1950, “On referring”, Mind, 59: 320–344.
- Tichý, P., 1988, The Foundations of Frege’s Logic, Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
- Tichý, P., 1995, “Constructions as the subject-matter of mathematics”, pages 175–185 in The Foundational Debate: Complexity and Constructivity in Mathematics and Physics, W. DePauli-Schimanovich, E. Köhler and F. Stadler (eds.), Dordrecht, Boston, London, and Viena: Kluwer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-017-3327-4_13
Publication order reference