580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
Key research themes
1. How do plural logic and second-order logic differ in their capacity to represent collections and generalization?
This theme focuses on the formal and philosophical distinctions between plural logic and second-order logic, especially regarding how each system handles generalization over multiple objects simultaneously. It matters because understanding these differences informs foundational logical frameworks and their applications in representing natural language semantics and mathematical concepts.
Key finding: This paper demonstrates that plural logic can be interpreted in monadic second-order logic (MSOL), but the converse fails—the full system of second-order logic cannot be interpreted in plural logic. It establishes that plural... Read more
2. What are the decidability boundaries for fragments of first-order logic under stable model semantics and circumscription?
This research area investigates the computational complexity and decidability of reasoning within various syntactically restricted fragments of first-order logic when interpreted under non-monotonic semantics like stable models and circumscription. Identifying maximally decidable fragments matters for the practical design and theoretical understanding of answer set programming and non-monotonic reasoning systems.
Key finding: The paper identifies six standard prefix-vocabulary classes that are maximally decidable under circumscription and shows that the Rabin class is maximally decidable under stable model semantics. It proves that some classes... Read more
3. What are the formal properties and semantics of first-order logic extended with modal operators expressing logical thesis or necessity?
This area explores enriched first-order logical systems with modal operators that directly express the notion of being a logical thesis or necessity within the logic. Such operators strengthen classical logic by internalizing entailment or validity modalities, with semantics that differ fundamentally from standard Kripke models. These extensions have implications for proof theory, modal logic completeness, and the formal representability of logical consequences.
Key finding: The paper introduces a first-order modal operator ⊢ expressing 'being a thesis' or logical necessity, differing semantically from standard modal logic S5. It provides a completeness proof relative to universal structures with... Read more
4. How do early historical developments challenge or nuance the classical first-order/second-order logic dichotomy?
This theme investigates the philosophical and foundational perspectives on the classical distinction between first-order and higher-order logics, showing that historically and model-theoretically, the boundary is not always clear-cut. This matters for understanding the conceptual foundations of modern logic, set theory, and interpretations of logical systems.
Key finding: The paper argues that the first-order/second-order distinction is context-dependent, especially when considered from set-theoretic or semantic perspectives. First-order set theory incorporates higher-order features by... Read more
5. What are the semantic and logical distinctions between the existential quantifier and a first-order existence predicate, particularly from Mario Bunge’s perspective?
This line of investigation re-examines the ontological commitments attributed to the existential quantifier in first-order logic, distinguishing it from explicit existence predicates. It is significant for ontology, philosophy of language, and formal semantics as it impacts reasoning about fictional entities and ontological arguments.
Key finding: Bunge argues that the existential quantifier (∃) lacks ontological import and functions only as a particularizing quantifier, meaning 'for some'. He distinguishes it from an existence predicate that affirms real existence.... Read more