Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Second- and higher-order logics
View through CrossRef
In first-order predicate logic there are symbols for fixed individuals, relations and functions on a given universe of individuals and there are variables ranging over the individuals, with associated quantifiers. Second-order logic adds variables ranging over relations and functions on the universe of individuals, and associated quantifiers, which are called second-order variables and quantifiers. Sometimes one also adds symbols for fixed higher-order relations and functions among and on the relations, functions and individuals of the original universe. One can add third-order variables ranging over relations and functions among and on the relations, functions and individuals on the universe, with associated quantifiers, and so on, to yield logics of even higher order. It is usual to use proof systems for higher-order logics (that is, logics beyond first-order) that include analogues of the first-order quantifier rules for all quantifiers.
An extensional n-ary relation variable in effect ranges over arbitrary sets of n-tuples of members of the universe. (Functions are omitted here for simplicity: remarks about them parallel those for relations.) If the set of sets of n-tuples of members of a universe is fully determined once the universe itself is given, then the truth-values of sentences involving second-order quantifiers are determined in a structure like the ones used for first-order logic. However, if the notion of the set of all sets of n-tuples of members of a universe is specified in terms of some theory about sets or relations, then the universe of a structure must be supplemented by specifications of the domains of the various higher-order variables. No matter what theory one adopts, there are infinitely many choices for such domains compatible with the theory over any infinite universe. This casts doubt on the apparent clarity of the notion of ‘all n-ary relations on a domain’: since the notion cannot be defined categorically in terms of the domain using any theory whatsoever, how could it be well-determined?
Title: Second- and higher-order logics
Description:
In first-order predicate logic there are symbols for fixed individuals, relations and functions on a given universe of individuals and there are variables ranging over the individuals, with associated quantifiers.
Second-order logic adds variables ranging over relations and functions on the universe of individuals, and associated quantifiers, which are called second-order variables and quantifiers.
Sometimes one also adds symbols for fixed higher-order relations and functions among and on the relations, functions and individuals of the original universe.
One can add third-order variables ranging over relations and functions among and on the relations, functions and individuals on the universe, with associated quantifiers, and so on, to yield logics of even higher order.
It is usual to use proof systems for higher-order logics (that is, logics beyond first-order) that include analogues of the first-order quantifier rules for all quantifiers.
An extensional n-ary relation variable in effect ranges over arbitrary sets of n-tuples of members of the universe.
(Functions are omitted here for simplicity: remarks about them parallel those for relations.
) If the set of sets of n-tuples of members of a universe is fully determined once the universe itself is given, then the truth-values of sentences involving second-order quantifiers are determined in a structure like the ones used for first-order logic.
However, if the notion of the set of all sets of n-tuples of members of a universe is specified in terms of some theory about sets or relations, then the universe of a structure must be supplemented by specifications of the domains of the various higher-order variables.
No matter what theory one adopts, there are infinitely many choices for such domains compatible with the theory over any infinite universe.
This casts doubt on the apparent clarity of the notion of ‘all n-ary relations on a domain’: since the notion cannot be defined categorically in terms of the domain using any theory whatsoever, how could it be well-determined?.
Related Results
A Van Benthem Characterization Result for Distribution-Free Logics
A Van Benthem Characterization Result for Distribution-Free Logics
This article contributes to recent results in the model theory of distribution-free logics (which include a Goldblatt-Thomason theorem and a development of their Sahlqvist theory) ...
Overinterpreting Logics
Overinterpreting Logics
Paraconsistent logics, minimally, are not explosive; that is, on these logics, not everything follows from a contradiction of the form ‘A and not-A’. Dialetheists, who argue that s...
The multiple logics of Buddhist monastery accounting
The multiple logics of Buddhist monastery accounting
Research has shown that Buddhist monasteries’ accounting provides detailed and fulfilling accountability requirements to rulers and the public. However, what influenced such practi...
Satisfiability in composition-nominative logics
Satisfiability in composition-nominative logics
Abstract
Composition-nominative logics are algebra-based logics of partial predicates constructed in a semantic-syntactic style on the methodological basis, which is...
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED]Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies ==❱❱ Huge Discounts:[HURRY UP ] Absolute Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies (Available)Order Online Only!! ❰❰= https://www.facebook.com/Keanu-Reeves-CBD-G...
Epistemic extensions of substructural inquisitive logics
Epistemic extensions of substructural inquisitive logics
Abstract
In this paper, we study the epistemic extensions of distributive substructural inquisitive logics. Substructural inquisitive logics are logics of questions ...
Linear-time logics -- a coalgebraic perspective
Linear-time logics -- a coalgebraic perspective
We describe a general approach to deriving linear-time logics for a wide
variety of state-based, quantitative systems, by modelling the latter as
coalgebras whose type incorporates...
Substructural Logics
Substructural Logics
Abstract
Sub structural logics are non classical logics, which arose in response to problems in foundations of mathematics and logic, theoretical computer science, m...

