Abstract
Classical mereology is a formal theory of the part-whole relation, essentially involving a notion of mereological fusion, or sum. There are various different definitions of fusion in the literature, and various axiomatizations for classical mereology. Though the equivalence of the definitions of fusion is provable from axiom sets, the definitions are not logically equivalent, and, hence, are not inter-changeable when laying down the axioms. We examine the relations between the main definitions of fusion and correct some technical errors in prominent discussions of the axiomatization of mereology. We show the equivalence of four different ways to axiomatize classical mereology, using three different notions of fusion. We also clarify the connection between classical mereology and complete Boolean algebra by giving two “neutral” axiom sets which can be supplemented by one or the other of two simple axioms to yield the full theories; one of these uses a notion of “strong complement” that helps explicate the connections between the theories.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bell, J. L., & Slomson, A. B. (1969). Models and ultraproducts: An introduction. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Casati, R., & Varzi, A. C. (1999). Parts and places: The structures of spatial representation. Cambridge: MIT.
Krifka, M. (1990). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 487–520.
Landman, F. (1991). Structures for semantics. Number 45 in Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Deventer: Kluwer.
Landman, F. (2000). Events and plurality: The jerusalem lectures. Number 76 in Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Deventer: Kluwer.
Leonard, H., & Goodman, N. (1940). The calculus of individuals and its uses. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5, 45–55.
Lewis, D. (1991). Parts of classes. Oxford: Blackwell.
Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, et al. (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 303–323). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Link, G. (1998). Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. Stanford: CSLI.
Pontow, C. (2004). A note on the axiomatics of theories in parthood. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 50, 195–213.
Pontow, C., & Schubert, R. (2006). A mathematical analysis of theories of parthood. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 59, 107–138.
Sharvy, R. (1980). A more general theory of definite descriptions. Philosophical Review, 89(4), 607–624.
Sharvy, R. (1983). Mixtures. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 44(2), 227–239.
Simons, P. (1987). Parts: A study in ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarski, A. (1935). Zur grundlegung der booleschen algebra. I. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 24, 177–198.
Tarski, A. (1983). Foundations of the geometry of solids. In J. Corcoran (Ed.), Logic, semantics, meta-mathematics. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Uzquiano, G. (2006). The price of universality. Philosophical Studies, 129, 137–169, May.
Varzi, A. (2004). Mereology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy ( fall 2004 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/mereology/.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hovda, P. What is Classical Mereology?. J Philos Logic 38, 55–82 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-008-9092-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-008-9092-4