[FOM] Negation's long lost twin?

Lucius Schoenbaum ltsbaum at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 04:38:16 EST 2008

Greetings everyone,

I would like to know whether anyone is aware of work (perhaps in the  
early days, or perhaps in later days) in which the operator T=>P is  
defined.  Of course, someone (was it Gentzen?) defined intuitionistic  
negation P=>F.  If one defines NOT(P) in this way, why not define  
something, say YES(P), by the corresponding relation?  This invites  
the obvious question about what the baldly written proposition P  
ought to mean.  Frege's intuition was that an operator is necessary  
to transform it into an assertion.  However, my question to FOM is  
only whether this appears anywhere in the literature so I can learn  
more about it.

My thanks,

Lucius Schoenbaum

Lucius Schoenbaum
Department of Philosophy
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-0002

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/fom/attachments/20080305/b57be352/attachment-0001.html

More information about the FOM mailing list