[FOM] Intensionality
Joao Marcos
vegetal at cle.unicamp.br
Thu Feb 13 19:27:47 EST 2003
-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/
More information about the FOM
mailing list