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

The main aim of this paper is to give a justification of what is called the principle of comprehension. A troublesome fact concerning this principle is that the simple formulation of it leads us to a contradiction. In order to avoid such circumstances, the doctrine of size limitation was introduced. Thus the so-called operation of separation today enjoys the status of axiom which the principle of comprehension enjoyed at the time of the birth of set theory. Since we think that such logical inconveniences arouse because of the incorrect formulation of this principle on the logical system which lacks the ability to express the logical struc ture of natural language in a proper way, we shall show what the correct formulation of the principle of comprehension must be with respect to the logical system which expresses the logical structure of natural language, without taking any recourse to the limitation of size doctrine. We shall be concerned with a logical system in which the correct formulation of the principle of comprehension is a provable formula. We shall show that the axiom of separation and that of replacement are derivable in that system. For this purpose we shall put forward a logical system which captures the logical features of natural language by extending appropriately the usual first-order predicate calculus which is today on the market (we shall hereafter refer to it as LI) with some appropriate logico-linguistic devices. We shall show that the axiom of separation and that of replacement are equivalent to each other in the system in question. They are tightly related to each other due to the comprehension principle correctly formulated. This might be a queer fact to those who are working on the standard set theory (cum LI), for it is considered usually that the axiom of replacement is stronger than that of separation. This phenomen in set theory is essentially related the axiom of power-set which is by nature of generative character. Our system has no operations of generative character, and this is the reason why the two axioms are equivalent in the system in question. There is one more formula which is equivalent to these axioms, i.e. a weak version of the correctly formulated principle of comprehension. As for the

IS-A Relation, the Principle of Comprehension and the Doctrine of Limitation of Size