Temperature paradox

The Temperature Paradox or Partee's Paradox is a classic puzzle in formal semantics and philosophical logic. Formulated by Barbara Partee, it consists of the following argument which would be wrongly predicted as valid by many formalizations.

The temperature is rising.
The temperature is ninety.
Therefore, ninety is rising. (invalid conclusion)

To correctly predict the invalidity of this argument, a formalization must capture the fact that the first premise makes an assertion about how the temperature changes over time, while the second makes an assertion about the temperature at a particular point in time. Richard Montague took the paradox as evidence that nominals denote individual concepts, defined as functions from a world-time pair to an individual.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Notes[]

^ Frana, Ilaria (2017). Concealed Questions. Oxford University Press. pp. 36–39. ISBN 978-0-19-967093-2.
^ Gamut, L.T.F. (1991). Logic, Language and Meaning: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. University of Chicago Press. pp. 203–204. ISBN 0-226-28088-8.
^ Montague, Richard (1974). "The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English". In Thomason, R.H. (ed.). Formal Philosophy: Selected papers by Richard Montague. Yale University Press.

External links[]

Fitting, Melvin. "Intensional logic". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

This semantics article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .

[1] Frana, Ilaria (2017). Concealed Questions. Oxford University Press. pp. 36–39. ISBN 978-0-19-967093-2.

[2] Gamut, L.T.F. (1991). Logic, Language and Meaning: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. University of Chicago Press. pp. 203–204. ISBN 0-226-28088-8.

[3] Montague, Richard (1974). "The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English". In Thomason, R.H. (ed.). Formal Philosophy: Selected papers by Richard Montague. Yale University Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]