Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

The 'standard' characterization of GEM given by Simons (1987) and inherited by subsequent literature is incorrect

Modality & Possibility

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

0 reasons for

1 reason against

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

1.Simons (1987: 37) characterized GEM as the result of adding the Unrestricted Sum principle to MM
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Pontow's (2004) counterexample shows that adding the Unrestricted Sum principle to MM does not yield GEM
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Source

AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid

SEP: mereology

View source passage

This means that in an extensional mereology ‘O’ could be used as a primitive and ‘P’ defined accordingly, as in Goodman (1951), and it can be checked that the theory defined by postulating (61) together with the Unrestricted Sum principle (P.153) and the Antisymmetry axiom (P.3) is equivalent to GEM (Eberle 1967). Another elegant axiomatization of GEM, due to an earlier work of Tarski (1929),[23] is obtained by taking just the Transitivity axiom (P.2) together with the Sum2-analogue of the Uni

Extraction notes

Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 1 (0 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit