Part One of this paper is a case against classical mereology and for Heyting mereology. This case proceeds by Brst undermining the appeal of classical mereology and then showing how it fails to cohere with our intuitions about a measure of quantity. Part Two shows how Heyting mereology provides an account of sets and classes without resort to any nonmereological primitive. © 2003 by the University of Notre Dame. All rights reserved.
CITATION STYLE
Forrest, P. (2002). Nonclassical mereology and its application to sets. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 43(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1071509430
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.