English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Three variants of Kurt G\"odel's ontological argument, proposed by DanaScott, C. Anthony Anderson and Melvin Fitting, are encoded and rigorouslyassessed on the computer. In contrast to Scott's version of G\"odel's argumentthe two variants contributed by Anderson and Fitting avoid modal collapse.Although they appear quite different on a cursory reading they are in factclosely related. This has been revealed in the computer-supported formalanalysis presented in this article. Key to our formal analysis is theutilization of suitably adapted notions of (modal) ultrafilters, and a carefuldistinction between extensions and intensions of positive properties.

Computer-supported Analysis of Positive Properties, Ultrafilters and Modal Collapse in Variants of G\"odel's Ontological Argument