2017
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-54458-7_32
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the Semantics of Intensionality

Abstract: In this paper we propose a categorical theory of intensionality. We first revisit the notion of intensionality, and discuss its relevance to logic and computer science. It turns out that 1-category theory is not the most appropriate vehicle for studying the interplay of extension and intension. We are thus led to consider the P-categories of Čubrić, Dybjer and Scott, which are categories only up to a partial equivalence relation (PER). In this setting, we introduce a new P-categorical construct, that of exposu… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 188 publications
(330 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From a programming perspective, the discussion and extensive bibliography of Kavvos' D.Phil. thesis [44] are well worth reading. Focusing just on interactive proof assistants, we find that Boyer and Moore developed a global infrastructure [7] for incorporating symbolic algorithms into Nqthm [8].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…From a programming perspective, the discussion and extensive bibliography of Kavvos' D.Phil. thesis [44] are well worth reading. Focusing just on interactive proof assistants, we find that Boyer and Moore developed a global infrastructure [7] for incorporating symbolic algorithms into Nqthm [8].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Of particular note is that, even in a pure programming context, unrestricted reflection leads to problems [123]. Kavvos' recent D.Phil thesis [84] has a very interesting overview of the impossibility of building a quotation operator (with certain properties) and other dangers. His literature review is also quite extensive.…”
Section: Meaning Formulasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As discussed before, the modal types work in our favour by separating intension from extension, so that the latter does not leak into the former. Given the logical nature of the categorical constructs used in our previous work on intensionality [15], we shall model the types of iPCF after the constructive modal logic S4, in the dual-context style pioneered by Pfenning and Davies [19,7]. Let us seize this opportunity to remark that (a) there are also other ways to capture S4, for which see the survey [13], and that (b) dual-context formulations are not by any means limited to S4: they began in the context of intuitionistic linear logic, but have recently been shown to also encompass other modal logics; see [14].…”
Section: Introducing Intensional Pcfmentioning
confidence: 99%