当前位置: X-MOL 学术Rev. Symb. Log. › 论文详情
ON MORITA EQUIVALENCE AND INTERPRETABILITY
The Review of Symbolic Logic ( IF 0.750 ) Pub Date : 2019-08-13 , DOI: 10.1017/s1755020319000303
PAUL ANH MCELDOWNEY

In a recent article, Barrett & Halvorson (2016) define a notion of equivalence for first-order theories, which they call “Morita equivalence.” To argue that Morita equivalence is a reasonable measure of “theoretical equivalence,” they make use of the claim that Morita extensions “say no more” than the theories they are extending. The goal of this article is to challenge this central claim by raising objections to their argument for it and by showing why there is good reason to think that the claim itself is false. In light of these criticisms, this article develops a natural way for the advocate of Morita equivalence to respond. I prove that this response makes her criterion a special case of bi-interpretability, an already well-established barometer of theoretical equivalence. I conclude by providing reasons why the advocate of Morita equivalence should opt for a notion of theoretical equivalence that is defined in terms of interpretability rather than Morita extensions.
更新日期:2019-08-13

 

全部期刊列表>>
材料学研究精选
Springer Nature Live 产业与创新线上学术论坛
胸腔和胸部成像专题
自然科研论文编辑服务
ACS ES&T Engineering
ACS ES&T Water
屿渡论文,编辑服务
杨超勇
周一歌
华东师范大学
南京工业大学
清华大学
中科大
唐勇
跟Nature、Science文章学绘图
隐藏1h前已浏览文章
中洪博元
课题组网站
新版X-MOL期刊搜索和高级搜索功能介绍
ACS材料视界
x-mol收录
福州大学
南京大学
王杰
左智伟
湖南大学
清华大学
吴杰
赵延川
中山大学化学工程与技术学院
试剂库存
天合科研
down
wechat
bug