I don’t know…The article repeats ancient prejudices; for instance, that the second-order variables are set variables. This neither helps the philosophical discussion of higher-order logic, nor the technical study of it.And, even though I have my doubts about it personally, no mention at all of Boolos’ plural interpretation is a bit disappointing for an article in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of *Philosophy*.
Great read!
Completely agree. This concise article is a classic.
I don’t know…The article repeats ancient prejudices; for instance, that the second-order variables are set variables. This neither helps the philosophical discussion of higher-order logic, nor the technical study of it.And, even though I have my doubts about it personally, no mention at all of Boolos’ plural interpretation is a bit disappointing for an article in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of *Philosophy*.