Scholarlink

<p>Bob and Ulf say logic should make explicit. The kinds of inference we take as licit. They give a formalism that’s classically complete, In which an extra premise may defeat. An inference that seems a reasonable fact. Thus reason’s made explicit but is it exact? For reason in the sense of Brandom and Hlobil, May explode like a logical Chernobyl. This is the point on which I’ll here push back, To keep the game of giving reasons exact; And with the help of fancy formal antics, I’ll give nonmonotonic truthmaker semantics.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Making it Exact

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月4日

查看全文
  • Mark Jago

摘要

Bob and Ulf say logic should make explicit. The kinds of inference we take as licit. They give a formalism that’s classically complete, In which an extra premise may defeat. An inference that seems a reasonable fact. Thus reason’s made explicit but is it exact? For reason in the sense of Brandom and Hlobil, May explode like a logical Chernobyl. This is the point on which I’ll here push back, To keep the game of giving reasons exact; And with the help of fancy formal antics, I’ll give nonmonotonic truthmaker semantics.