[FOM] Intensionality

[Joao Marcos]

-o- Is there anything like a "universally agreed" *formal definition* of
what it means for a LOGIC to be called INTENSIONAL (as opposed to
extensional)??

[I am thinking in particular of what Wojcicki calls a SELF-EXTENSIONAL
logic in his book (1988) on the theory of consequence
operators/relations (cf. ch.5: a structural tarskian logic~$\lc$ is
*self-extensional* iff it has a class of adequate 2-valued `frame
interpretations').  So, his definition of self-extensionality applies
exactly to the class of logics having "canonical" interpretations in
terms of possible-worlds semantics, a class which many other authors
would apparently prefer to call *intensional*.]


   Now, if an answer to the above question is unwilling, let me try this
one:

-o- Is there anything like a "universally agreed" *formal definition* of
what it means for a CONNECTIVE to be called INTENSIONAL??


--
     ___          ___
    /  /\        /__/\
   /  /:/       |  |::\      JOAO MARCOS
  /__/::\       |  |:|:\
  \__\/\:\    __|__|:|\:\    Centre for Logic, Epistemology
     \  \:\  /__/::::| \:\     and the History of Science
      \__\:\ \  \:\~~\__\/   Unicamp
      /  /:/  \  \:\         CP 6133
     /__/:/    \  \:\        13083-970  Campinas - Brazil
     \__\/      \  \:\
                 \__\/       Fax #: +55 19 3289 3269

http://www.geocities.com/jm_logica/