Hubbry Logo
Extensional and intensional definitionsExtensional and intensional definitionsMain
Open search
Extensional and intensional definitions
Community hub
Extensional and intensional definitions
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Extensional and intensional definitions
Extensional and intensional definitions
Extensional and intensional definitions
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In logic, extensional and intensional definitions are two key ways in which the objects, concepts, or referents a term refers to can be defined. They give meaning or denotation to a term. An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. An extensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying every object that falls under the definition of the term in question.

For example, in set theory one would extensionally define the set of square numbers as {0, 1, 4, 9, 16, }, while an intensional definition of the set of the square numbers could be { is the square of an integer}.

Intensional definition

[edit]
See also: Intension

An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

For example, an intensional definition of the word "bachelor" is "unmarried man". This definition is valid because being an unmarried man is both a necessary condition and a sufficient condition for being a bachelor: it is necessary because one cannot be a bachelor without being an unmarried man, and it is sufficient because any unmarried man is a bachelor.[1]

This is the opposite approach to the extensional definition, which defines by listing everything that falls under that definition – an extensional definition of bachelor would be a listing of all the unmarried men in the world.[1]

As becomes clear, intensional definitions are best used when something has a clearly defined set of properties, and they work well for terms that have too many referents to list in an extensional definition. It is impossible to give an extensional definition for a term with an infinite set of referents, but an intensional one can often be stated concisely – there are infinitely many even numbers, impossible to list, but the term "even numbers" can be defined easily by saying that even numbers are integer multiples of two.

Definition by genus and difference, in which something is defined by first stating the broad category it belongs to and then distinguished by specific properties, is a type of intensional definition. As the name might suggest, this is the type of definition used in Linnaean taxonomy to categorize living things, but is by no means restricted to biology. Suppose one defines a miniskirt as "a skirt with a hemline above the knee". It has been assigned to a genus, or larger class of items: it is a type of skirt. Then, we've described the differentia, the specific properties that make it its own sub-type: it has a hemline above the knee.

An intensional definition may also consist of rules or sets of axioms that define a set by describing a procedure for generating all of its members. For example, an intensional definition of square number can be "any number that can be expressed as some integer multiplied by itself". The rule—"take an integer and multiply it by itself"—always generates members of the set of square numbers, no matter which integer one chooses, and for any square number, there is an integer that was multiplied by itself to get it.

Similarly, an intensional definition of a game, such as chess, would be the rules of the game; any game played by those rules must be a game of chess, and any game properly called a game of chess must have been played by those rules.

Extensional definition

[edit]
See also: Extension (semantics)

An extensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying its extension, that is, every object that falls under the definition of the term in question.

For example, an extensional definition of the term "nation of the world" might be given by listing all of the nations of the world, or by giving some other means of recognizing the members of the corresponding class. An explicit listing of the extension, which is only possible for finite sets and only practical for relatively small sets, is a type of enumerative definition.

Extensional definitions are used when listing examples would give more applicable information than other types of definition, and where listing the members of a set tells the questioner enough about the nature of that set.

An extensional definition possesses similarity to an ostensive definition, in which one or more members of a set (but not necessarily all) are pointed to as examples, but contrasts clearly with an intensional definition, which defines by listing properties that a thing must have in order to be part of the set captured by the definition.

Etymology

[edit]

The terms "intension" and "extension" were introduced before 1911 by Constance Jones[2] and formalized by Rudolf Carnap.[3]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Extensional and intensional definitions

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Extensional and intensional definitions are two primary methods in logic and for specifying the meaning of a term or concept. An extensional definition identifies the extension of a term—the set of all objects to which it applies—typically by or to instances, such as defining the term "evening star" by pointing to as its sole . In contrast, an intensional definition captures the of a term—the , attributes, or mode of that determine its extension—such as describing "evening star" as the celestial body visible in the evening sky that is identical to the morning star. The distinction between extension and intension traces back to early modern philosophy but was formalized in modern logic by Gottlob Frege in his 1892 essay "On Sense and Reference," where he differentiated Sinn (sense, akin to intension) as the conceptual content or mode of presentation of a sign from Bedeutung (reference, akin to extension) as the actual object or truth-value it designates. Frege argued that terms with the same extension can differ in intension, as seen in identity statements like "Hesperus is Phosphorus," where both names refer to Venus but convey distinct senses, explaining why such statements are informative rather than trivial. Bertrand Russell further elaborated on this in his 1919 Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, contrasting extensional definitions, which enumerate class members (e.g., listing specific individuals), with intensional ones, which rely on a defining property (e.g., "human" as a rational animal), noting that intension is logically more fundamental for infinite classes like the natural numbers that cannot be fully enumerated. Rudolf Carnap advanced the framework in the mid-20th century by treating as a function that assigns an extension to a term across possible worlds or states of affairs, providing a semantic tool for analyzing necessity, synonymy, and analyticity in language. This approach, detailed in works like Meaning and Necessity (1947), allows intensional definitions to account for modal contexts where substitutivity of co-extensional terms fails, such as in belief reports (e.g., "Lois believes can fly" but not "Lois believes Clark Kent can fly," despite their shared extension). Earlier roots appear in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's 17th-century discussions of containment in concepts, where intension involves the internal attributes composing a notion, while extension concerns the scope of its application. These definitions play a crucial role in avoiding and intensional fallacies in argumentation, as extensional approaches risk incompleteness for abstract or infinite domains, while intensional ones ensure conceptual precision but may introduce in specification. In of language, the framework influences debates on semantic compositionality, possible-worlds semantics, and the nature of meaning, with extensions determining truth conditions and intensions preserving cognitive significance across contexts.

Overview and Fundamentals

Core Concepts

Definitions serve as fundamental mechanisms in , logic, and for specifying the meaning of terms or , thereby establishing clear criteria for their application and interpretation in and . By articulating what a term denotes or connotes, definitions facilitate precise communication and mitigate misunderstandings inherent in . Extensional definitions achieve this specification by enumerating the complete set of objects, entities, or instances to which the term refers, effectively defining its scope through exhaustive listing. In contrast, intensional definitions describe the meaning by identifying the essential properties, attributes, or conditions that must be satisfied for something to fall under the term, focusing on the intrinsic characteristics that unify the . The distinction between these approaches is particularly relevant for avoiding in and reasoning, as extensional methods provide tangible boundaries for while intensional methods ensure conceptual coherence, allowing thinkers to address both empirical applicability and theoretical depth in arguments. This duality helps resolve conflicts between a term's real-world and its abstract formulation, enhancing clarity in semantic and logical contexts. These notions have been integral to formal semantics since the , originating with Gottlob Frege's foundational work distinguishing from , which introduced the framework for analyzing meanings beyond mere extensional equivalence.

Role in Logic and Semantics

In logic, characterizes contexts where the interpretation of expressions depends solely on the extensions or references of their parts, allowing substitutivity of co-referring terms while preserving truth values. This principle underpins classical , where semantic evaluation focuses on denotations rather than modes of , ensuring that equivalent referents behave identically in compounds. For instance, in extensional systems, the truth of a statement like "The morning star is a " equates to that of " is a " without regard to differing conceptual grasps of the terms. Frege's distinction between (Sinn) and (Bedeutung) provides a semantic foundation for delineating extensional from intensional contexts, with capturing the cognitive or informational content that determines but is not reducible to it. In extensional semantics, governs meaning, as in mathematical or empirical assertions where co-referring expressions are interchangeable; however, in intensional contexts like propositional attitudes, becomes primary, explaining failures of substitutivity. This framework resolves puzzles in identity statements, such as why "The morning star is the evening star" conveys new information despite identical references to , by attributing the informativeness to divergent s. Intensional logic builds on this distinction to address phenomena beyond extensional scope, particularly modalities (necessity and possibility), beliefs, and non-referential meanings, by modeling intensions as functions from possible worlds to extensions. It handles belief reports, such as "Lois believes Superman can fly" but not "Lois believes Clark Kent can fly," where co-reference fails due to sense differences, using structures like Kripke models with accessibility relations between worlds. Similarly, modalities like "Necessarily, all bachelors are unmarried" evaluate truth across accessible worlds, preserving intensional opacity. Non-referential terms, such as definite descriptions without bearers (e.g., "the present king of France"), are accommodated via partial denotations or sense-mediated interpretations. The adoption of extensional definitions, via axioms like in , is vital for circumventing paradoxes arising from unrestricted intensional comprehension, as seen in where the set of non-self-membered sets leads to contradiction. By equating sets solely by membership (∀z(z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y) → x = y), extensionality restricts set formation to clear extensions, classifying paradoxical entities like Russell's set as proper classes rather than sets, thus maintaining consistency in axiomatic systems like Zermelo-Fraenkel. This approach shifts focus from property-based (intensional) definitions to membership-based ones, averting circular self-reference and supporting rigorous semantic foundations.

Intensional Definitions

Defining Features

Intensional definitions specify the meaning of a term by delineating its —the abstract properties, attributes, or conceptual content that determine its extension—rather than listing the referents themselves. This approach emphasizes the term's sense or mode of presentation, as introduced by , where the intension captures how the term conveys meaning beyond mere . In logical and semantic contexts, the key attribute of an intensional definition is its focus on the internal structure or criteria that define membership, allowing terms with identical extensions to differ in meaning, such as "" and "morning star" both referring to but via distinct conceptual descriptions. This aligns with intensionality in semantics, where substitutivity fails in certain contexts (e.g., modal or propositional attitudes), highlighting that preserves cognitive or informational content. Such definitions are essential for abstract or infinite domains, where enumeration is impossible, as they provide a principled way to specify meaning through necessary and sufficient conditions or functional mappings. In set theory and modal logic, intension relates to how extensions vary across possible worlds, ensuring definitions account for necessity and contingency.

Construction Methods

Intensional definitions are constructed by articulating the properties or rules that characterize the of a term, thereby indirectly determining its extension without exhaustive listing. For with clear attributes, definitions rely on descriptive criteria, such as defining "" as an unmarried , which specifies the inherent qualities rather than naming individuals. This method uses necessary and sufficient conditions to encapsulate the , applicable to both finite and infinite classes. In more complex cases, especially involving modality, intensional definitions employ functions that map terms to extensions across possible worlds or states of affairs, as developed by . For instance, the intension of "prime number" might be a function yielding the set of primes in each world, allowing analysis of analyticity and synonymy. For opaque contexts like beliefs, construction incorporates modes of presentation, ensuring the definition reflects cognitive differences; recursive or rule-based specifications can build intensions for formal languages, generating meanings through compositionality. Hybrid approaches may combine intensional elements with extensional references for precision in applied semantics. Despite their utility, intensional constructions can introduce vagueness if properties are ambiguous, often requiring refinement through philosophical or empirical clarification to avoid circularity.

Illustrative Examples

A classic example of an intensional definition is "water," defined as the clear, odorless liquid that falls from the sky as rain and covers most of the Earth's surface, emphasizing properties like chemical composition (H₂O) that determine its extension across contexts. This captures the intension without listing all water molecules. Similarly, "" can be intensional defined as a greater than 1 that has no positive divisors other than 1 and itself, specifying the mathematical properties rather than enumerating instances like 2, 3, 5. Such definitions are vital for infinite sets where listing is infeasible. Intensional nonequivalence occurs when terms share extensions but differ in sense; for example, "" (the evening star) and "" (the morning star) both denote , yet the identity "Hesperus is Phosphorus" is informative due to distinct intensions. However, intensional definitions may fail in hyperintensional contexts, such as fine-grained belief reports: "Lois believes that can fly" holds, but substituting the coextensive "Clark Kent" yields falsehood, as the intensions differ despite shared . This illustrates limitations for evolving or subjective concepts, where must account for epistemic variance.

Extensional Definitions

Defining Features

Extensional definitions assign meaning to a term by specifying every object or that falls within its scope, typically through complete of its members or by direct to the entire collection comprising its extension. This approach focuses on the of the term—the actual set of referents—rather than any inherent properties or qualities that might characterize them. In logical and semantic contexts, the core attribute of an extensional definition lies in its emphasis on the extension as the primary determinant of meaning, where the term's significance is exhausted by identifying all elements belonging to it, without recourse to descriptive criteria or connotations. This denotative focus aligns with principles in semantics, ensuring that the captures the external of the term precisely through its referential scope. Such definitions are particularly suitable for finite sets, where exhaustive listing is feasible and provides a complete, unambiguous specification of membership. However, for infinite sets, direct becomes impractical, necessitating alternative referential methods, such as ostensive indication or pointers to well-defined collections, to convey the full extension without partial listing. In , the extension of a set is fundamentally the set itself, as formalized by the , which posits that two sets are identical they share exactly the same elements, underscoring the extensional definition's role in determining set equality solely by membership.

Construction Methods

Extensional definitions are constructed by specifying the extension of a term, which consists of all objects to which the term applies, without reference to shared properties. For finite sets with a manageable number of members, direct provides a straightforward method, listing each element explicitly to delineate the extension. This approach is practical when the class is small and fully known, such as naming all components in a limited collection. When enumeration becomes cumbersome for larger but still finite sets, techniques like ostension or definite descriptions are employed to indicate the extension. Ostension involves reference, such as pointing to instances to convey membership, often supplementing partial listings. Definite descriptions, meanwhile, refer to the unique collection satisfying a given condition, effectively picking out the entire extension without exhaustive listing. Infinite extensions pose significant challenges, as complete is theoretically impossible. To handle such cases, recursive definitions build the extension through a base case and iterative rules, generating members indefinitely. Alternatively, class references invoke established collections, such as referring to the entirety of a known infinite domain. Despite these strategies, extensional constructions often prove impractical for open-ended or vast concepts, where full specification exceeds cognitive or descriptive capacities, prompting hybrid methods that incorporate intensional elements for feasibility.

Illustrative Examples

One classic example of an extensional definition is that of in the solar system, which enumerates the members as Mercury, , , Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, , and . This approach directly specifies the extension by listing all elements without reference to shared properties. Similarly, the fingers on a hand can be extensional defined by as the thumb, , , , and pinky finger. Such finite lists are straightforward for small, fixed classes where all members are explicitly identifiable. Extensional equivalence arises when different descriptions yield the same set of members; for instance, explicitly listing the prime numbers between 2 and 8 as {2, 3, 5, 7} is equivalent to referring to the set of all prime numbers in that range, as both capture the identical extension. This equivalence holds because set identity depends solely on membership, not on the manner of presentation. For an , the natural numbers provide an example, where the extension is specified by reference to the collection beginning with 0 and closed under the successor operation (adding 1), often denoted as {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}, without enumerating all members. However, extensional definitions can falter for dynamic sets whose membership changes over time, such as the current , which at any given moment lists individuals like the presidents or prime ministers in power but requires temporal specification to remain accurate, as transitions like elections alter the extension. In such cases, the definition applies only to a snapshot, highlighting limitations for evolving classes.

Comparisons and Applications

Key Differences

A primary distinction between extensional and intensional definitions lies in substitutivity: in extensional contexts, terms with the same extension can be interchanged without altering the truth value of the containing sentence, as the emphasis is on the referent itself, whereas intensional contexts prohibit such substitution due to reliance on the distinct senses or modes of presentation of the terms. This contrast arises because extensional definitions treat meaning through reference alone, while intensional definitions incorporate connotation or conceptual content that affects opacity in embedded contexts. Gottlob Frege's seminal analysis in "On Sense and Reference" establishes this by arguing that proper names like "the morning star" and "the evening star" share a reference (Venus) but possess different senses, allowing substitution in extensional sentences like identity statements but failing in intensional ones such as propositional attitudes (e.g., belief). Regarding scope, extensional definitions are well-suited to concrete or finite collections, where enumeration of all members provides a complete specification, but they become impractical or impossible for abstract or infinite domains, necessitating intensional definitions that articulate necessary and sufficient properties shared by the class. For instance, while an extensional approach can list all current U.S. presidents for a finite historical set, defining natural numbers requires an intensional characterization via recursive properties, as infinite listing is infeasible. This limitation highlights how extensional definitions prioritize denotation through individuals, whereas intensional ones enable generalization across unbounded extensions. Philosophically, extensional definitions tend to align with nominalist orientations by reducing concepts to particulars and their extensions, avoiding commitment to abstract universals, in contrast to intensional definitions, which support realist views by invoking shared essences or as explanatory entities. In debates over , for example, nominalists favor extensional treatments akin to sets to account for predication without positing intensional universals, while realists defend the latter to explain resemblance and laws. Hybrid definitions integrate both approaches for greater completeness, combining or with property-based criteria to address limitations of each in isolation, as seen in logical systems that model both and . Such combinations appear in type-theoretic semantics, where extensional structures are augmented with intensional operators to handle complex meanings.

Practical Uses and Limitations

Extensional definitions find practical application in legal and juridical contexts where precision requires listing specific members of a category, such as enumerated rights in . For example, the U.S. Constitution's explicitly lists protections like and assembly, ensuring a finite, unambiguous set that delimits governmental scope without implying additional unstated elements. Similarly, Article I, Section 8 enumerates congressional powers, including taxation and commerce regulation, to establish clear boundaries for legislative authority. Intensional definitions, by contrast, are widely used in scientific taxonomies to define categories through shared properties or relations, enabling beyond listed instances. In , phylogenetic taxonomy employs intensional definitions to circumscribe clades, such as defining "Aves" as the of Ratitae, Tinamidae, and plus all descendants, based on apomorphies like feathered wings. This approach accommodates evolutionary dynamics by focusing on relational criteria rather than exhaustive enumeration. A key limitation of extensional definitions is their impracticability for infinite or dynamic sets, where complete listing exceeds finite resources; for instance, defining the class of all prime numbers or all possible future through enumeration fails theoretically and practically. Intensional definitions, however, can introduce if necessary and sufficient conditions are vaguely specified, and they invite critiques of by presuming invariant core properties that may not hold across variable contexts, as seen in debates over natural kinds. In modern AI and , extensional definitions support database queries that retrieve concrete instances (e.g., ABox assertions in ontologies), facilitating precise extraction, while intensional definitions structure conceptual schemas (TBox axioms) for applications like ontology-based access, where views such as epistemic queries (e.g., managers of known departments) enable controlled integration and optimization in systems like DL-Lite. Tractability is preserved in lightweight ontologies, though unrestricted features like can render reasoning undecidable. In and , extensional definitions identify a word's referents in a specific (e.g., the extension of "dog" as {Fido, Rover} in one ), whereas intensional definitions model variations across possible worlds via a function or table, supporting compositional of meaning in sentences. Choosing between the two depends on : extensional definitions suit closed domains requiring exhaustive precision, like fixed legal lists, while intensional definitions provide explanatory depth for evolving or abstract domains, such as scientific classifications, though they demand careful formulation to mitigate opacity.

Historical and Etymological Background

Origins of Terminology

The term "" originates from the Latin intensio (stretching, straining), derived from the intendere (to stretch toward or aim at), and entered English around with a general of effort or increase in degree before its adoption in logical contexts during the . As the counterpart, "extension" stems from Latin extensio (a stretching out), from extendere (to stretch out), which began appearing in philosophical discussions of scope and , gaining formal logical usage in the . These etymological roots evoke the metaphorical tension between inward conceptual depth and outward referential breadth, central to their application in defining terms. Scholastic logic influenced the terminology through concepts like comprehensio, which captured the as the enclosed or comprehended attributes and essential qualities defining a term's meaning, contrasting with its broader application or . This medieval framework, rooted in Aristotelian traditions, provided the groundwork for later distinctions, emphasizing the internal content over mere enumeration. The initial coinage in modern philosophical discourse occurred in the 17th century with , who used intensio for the internal, qualitative essence of concepts and extensio for their external, quantitative reach, drawing from scholastic calculators such as Richard Swineshead to hint at a systematic opposition. These ideas were explicitly distinguished in English by in his 1843 A System of Logic, where he contrasted the intensional attributes (termed "connotation") that specify a term's meaning with its extensional reference ( "denotation"), marking a pivotal formalization in .

Evolution in Philosophical Thought

The roots of intensional definitions trace back to , particularly 's Categories, where he outlined a method of division using differentiae to specify within . explained that , such as "man," are defined by combining a like "" with differentiae such as "rational" and "two-footed," thereby predicating essential properties of the individuals falling under the rather than listing them exhaustively. This technique prefigures intensional approaches by emphasizing the intrinsic qualities or meanings that determine class membership, contrasting with mere enumeration. During the medieval period, the debate between and realism regarding universals profoundly shaped early conceptions of extension and . Realists, including , maintained that universals exist as objective entities—either transcendent or immanent in particulars—whose intensional essence or grounds the shared properties across instances, linking extension to the instantiation of these real forms. In opposition, nominalists like denied the independent reality of universals, viewing them as linguistic conventions or predicates that collect particulars without deeper , thereby prioritizing an extensional focus on the set of individuals over intensional meanings. These positions influenced how philosophers understood the tension between a term's referential scope (extension) and its conceptual content (), setting the stage for later semantic analyses. In the 20th century, Rudolf Carnap advanced a rigorous semantic framework distinguishing intension from extension, treating intension as the meaning or property determined solely by semantical rules and extension as the factual class or truth-value in the actual world. In Meaning and Necessity, Carnap applied this to predicates and sentences, enabling definitions of synonymy via L-equivalence of intensions and analyzing analyticity without empirical contingencies. Willard Van Orman Quine, however, mounted a influential critique of such intensionalism, arguing in "Reference and Modality" that intensional objects and modal contexts introduce referential opacity, complicating quantification and reviving Aristotelian essentialism in logic. Quine advocated for extensional purity, rejecting intensions as ontologically suspect and favoring set-theoretic extensions for clarity in philosophical analysis. Since the mid-20th century, extensional and intensional definitions have evolved centrally in , , and formal semantics, integrating possible worlds to model non-actual scenarios and propositional attitudes. Formal semanticists like and David Lewis refined intensionality through possible worlds frameworks, where meanings function as intensions mapping worlds to extensions, resolving Quinean opacity in modality and contexts. In , these distinctions underpin concept theories, with intension capturing internal mental structures and extension linking to external referents, as explored in model-theoretic semantics. has sustained this trajectory, balancing extensional rigor with intensional tools for linguistic and metaphysical precision.

References

  1. https://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/metaphysics/readings/Frege.SenseAndReference.pdf
  2. https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dbraun2/Research/BraunExtensionIntension.pdf
  3. https://people.umass.edu/klement/imp/imp.html
  4. https://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/carnap/editorial/latex_pdf/1955-3.pdf
  5. https://campuspress.yale.edu/georgebealer/files/2015/09/Part-7-Extensionality-2m4m2yw.pdf
  6. https://home.csulb.edu/~cwallis/170/text/concepts.pdf
  7. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/106136/es-2h3-fall-2009/contents/readings/MITES_2H3F09_Definitions.pdf
  8. https://people.umass.edu/partee/MGU_Web_11/materials/MGU1113.pdf
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/
  10. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/semantics-extensionality.html
  11. https://iep.utm.edu/frege/
  12. https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2011-12/83104/handouts/frege-sense.pdf
  13. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/
  14. https://fair-use.org/bertrand-russell/the-principles-of-mathematics/s71
  15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/
  16. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/longworth/definitions.pdf
  17. https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/planets/
  18. https://mathresearch.utsa.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Sets:Definitions
  19. https://www.philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/settheory_rpx.2.10.pdf
  20. https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Combinatorics_and_Discrete_Mathematics/A_Cool_Brisk_Walk_Through_Discrete_Mathematics_(Davies)/02%3A_Sets/2.3%3A_Finite_and_infinite_sets
  21. http://www.ub.edu/grc_logos/files/1263459298-Sense&Reference.pdf
  22. https://philpapers.org/archive/PARESR-3.pdf
  23. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/
  24. https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/enumerated-rights/
  25. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-3-3/ALDE_00013292/
  26. https://d3qi0qp55mx5f5.cloudfront.net/paulsereno/i/docs/99-SB-Phylogenetic_Taxonomy.pdf
  27. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/
  28. https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2021/0251.pdf
  29. https://gawron.sdsu.edu/semantics/course_core/lectures/intension_extension.htm
  30. https://www.etymonline.com/word/intension
  31. https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/Leibniz/Swoyer_Leibniz_on_Extension_and_Intension.pdf
  32. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/categories.1.1.html
  33. https://journal-redescriptions.org/articles/10.33134/rds.314
  34. https://iep.utm.edu/properties/
  35. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/36313/chapter/318647190
  36. https://authortomharper.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/1947-Meaning-and-Necessity-Carnap.pdf
  37. http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Quine%20-%20Reference%20and%20Modality.pdf
  38. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-38/issue-2/Rethinking-Quines-Argument-on-the-Collapse-of-Modal-Distinctions/10.1305/ndjfl/1039724891.pdf
  39. http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-heim-intensional.pdf
  40. http://people.umass.edu/partee/docs/Partee%20MITECS%20Semantics.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.