## Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments | |||

Author | Item | Excerpt | Meta data |
---|---|---|---|

Books on Amazon |
II 176 Independence / Logic / Cresswell: misunderstanding: independence of an axiom does not mean that you can discard it at will - e.g. an independence proof within the axiomatic propositional calculus, for example, the independence of (p v q)> (q v p). - Such proof indicates that one can give a semantic definition of an operator that meets all other axioms of disjunction, but is not commutative - but it does not show that disjunction itself is not commutative, and it also does not show that (p v q)> (q v p) is not a logical truth about classic disjunction. |
Cr I M. J. Cresswell Semantical Essays (Possible worlds and their rivals) Dordrecht Boston 1988 Cr II M. J. Cresswell Structured Meanings Cambridge Mass. 1984 |

> Counter arguments against **Cresswell**

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei

Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-05-29