Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Substitution inconsistencies in Transparent Intensional Logic

Substitution inconsistencies in Transparent Intensional Logic This paper presents several important results for Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL). The conversions that are standardly taken to be valid – namely restricted β-conversion by name and β-reduction by value – are shown to be invalid. The core principle on which their validity is based – the so-called Compensation Principle – is also shown to be invalid. Further, the paper demonstrates the flaws of the proof of the Compensation Principle. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Taylor & Francis

Substitution inconsistencies in Transparent Intensional Logic

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics , Volume 31 (3-4): 17 – Oct 2, 2021

Substitution inconsistencies in Transparent Intensional Logic

Abstract

This paper presents several important results for Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL). The conversions that are standardly taken to be valid – namely restricted β-conversion by name and β-reduction by value – are shown to be invalid. The core principle on which their validity is based – the so-called Compensation Principle – is also shown to be invalid. Further, the paper demonstrates the flaws of the proof of the Compensation Principle.
Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/substitution-inconsistencies-in-transparent-intensional-logic-fD8DLnuajl
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
ISSN
1958-5780
eISSN
1166-3081
DOI
10.1080/11663081.2021.1982553
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper presents several important results for Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL). The conversions that are standardly taken to be valid – namely restricted β-conversion by name and β-reduction by value – are shown to be invalid. The core principle on which their validity is based – the so-called Compensation Principle – is also shown to be invalid. Further, the paper demonstrates the flaws of the proof of the Compensation Principle.

Journal

Journal of Applied Non-Classical LogicsTaylor & Francis

Published: Oct 2, 2021

Keywords: Compensation Principle; free occurrence of a variable; collisionless substitution; Transparent Intensional Logic

References