Nonclassical mereology and its application to sets

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 79-94

  Forrest, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Class; Fusion; Measure; Mereology; Set; Sum

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845269487     PISSN: 00294527     EISSN: 19390726     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1305/ndjfl/1071509430     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Divers, J., Possible Worlds, Routledge, London, 2002.
2. Forrest, P., “How innocent is mereology?” Analysis, vol. 56 (1996), pp. 127-31.
3. Forrest, P., “Grit or gunk: The implications of the Banach-Tarski paradox,” forthcoming in The Monist, vol. 87 (2004).
4. Johnstone, P. T., Stone Spaces, vol. 3 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
5. Lewis, D., Parts of Classes, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1991.
6. Simons, P. M., “On understanding Lesniewski,” History and Philosophy of Logic, vol. 3 (1982), pp. 165-91.
7. Simons, P. M., Parts: A Study of Ontology, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987.
8. Tarski, A., “Foundations of the geometry of solids,” pp. 24-29 in Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Papers from 1923 to 1938, translated by J. H. Woodger, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1956.
9. Van Fraassen, B., “Singular terms, truth-value gaps and free logic,” Journal of Philosophy, vol. 63 (1966), pp. 481-95.