Mereology

Mereology (/mɪəriˈɒlədʒi/; from Greek μέρος 'part' (root: μερε-, mere-) and the suffix -logy, 'study, discussion, science') is the philosophical study of part-whole relationships, also called parthood relationships.[1][2] As a branch of metaphysics, mereology examines the connections between parts and their wholes, exploring how components interact within a system. This theory has roots in ancient philosophy, with significant contributions from Plato, Aristotle, and later, medieval and Renaissance thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus.[3] Mereology was formally axiomatized in the 20th century by Polish logician Stanisław Leśniewski, who introduced it as part of a comprehensive framework for logic and mathematics, and coined the word "mereology".[2]

Mereological ideas were influential in early § Set theory, and formal mereology continues to be used by some working on the § Foundations of mathematics. Different axiomatizations of mereology have been applied in § Metaphysics, used in § Linguistic semantics to analyze "mass terms", used in the cognitive sciences,[1] and developed in § General systems theory. Mereology has been combined with topology, for more on which see the article on mereotopology. Mereology is also used in the foundation of Whitehead's point-free geometry, on which see Tarski 1956 and Gerla 1995. Mereology is used in discussions of entities as varied as musical groups, geographical regions, and abstract concepts, demonstrating its applicability to a wide range of philosophical and scientific discourses.[1]

In metaphysics, mereology is used to formulate the thesis of "composition as identity", the theory that individuals or objects are identical to mereological sums (also called fusions) of their parts.[3] A metaphysical thesis called "mereological monism" suggests that the version of mereology developed by Stanisław Leśniewski and Nelson Goodman (commonly called General Extensional Mereology, or GEM)[lower-alpha 1] serves as the general and exhaustive theory of parthood and composition, at least for a large and significant domain of things.[4] This thesis is controversial, since parthood may not seem to be a transitive relation (as claimed by GEM) in some cases, such as the parthood between organisms and their organs.[6] Nevertheless, GEM's assumptions are very common in mereological frameworks, due largely to Leśniewski influence as the one to first coin the word and formalize the theory: mereological theories commonly assume that everything is a part of itself (reflexivity), that a part of a part of a whole is itself a part of that whole (transitivity), and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other (antisymmetry), so that the parthood relation is a partial order. An alternative is to assume instead that parthood is irreflexive (nothing is ever a part of itself) but still transitive, in which case antisymmetry follows automatically.

## Contents

* 1 History
* 1.1 Parts of Classes
* 1.2 Foundations of mathematics
* 2 General systems theory
* 3 Linguistic semantics
* 3.1 Mass–count distinction and measure phrases
* 3.2 Plurals, distributivity and collectivity
* 3.3 Events, aspect and verbal predicates
* 3.4 Alternative formalisms and limitations
* 4 See also
* 5 Notes
* 6 References
* 7 Sources
* 8 External links

## History

Informal part-whole reasoning was consciously invoked in metaphysics and ontology from Plato (in particular, in the second half of the Parmenides) and Aristotle onwards, and more or less unwittingly in 19th-century mathematics until the triumph of set theory around 1910.[2] Metaphysical ideas of this era that discuss the concepts of parts and wholes include divine simplicity and the classical conception of beauty.

Ivor Grattan-Guinness (2001) explains part-whole reasoning during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and reviews how Cantor and Peano devised set theory. It appears that the first to reason consciously and at length about parts and wholes was Edmund Husserl, in 1901, in the second volume of Logical Investigations – Third Investigation: "On the Theory of Wholes and Parts" (Husserl 1970 is the English translation). However, the word "mereology" is absent from his writings, and he employed no symbolism even though his doctorate was in mathematics.

Stanisław Leśniewski coined "mereology" in 1927,[7] from the Greek word μέρος (méros, "part"), to refer to a formal theory of part-whole he devised in a series of highly technical papers published between 1916 and 1931, and translated in Leśniewski (1992). Leśniewski's student Alfred Tarski, in his Appendix E to Woodger (1937)[8] and the paper translated as Tarski (1984), greatly simplified Leśniewski's formalism. Other students (and students of students) of Leśniewski elaborated this "Polish mereology" over the course of the 20th century. For a selection of the literature on Polish mereology, see Srzednicki and Rickey (1984).[9] For a survey of Polish mereology, see Simons (1987).[10] Since 1980 or so, however, research on Polish mereology has been almost entirely historical in nature.

A. N. Whitehead planned a fourth volume of Principia Mathematica, on geometry, but never wrote it. His 1914 correspondence with Bertrand Russell reveals that his intended approach to geometry can be seen, with the benefit of hindsight, as mereological in essence.Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24".; etc. The collective conception is now dominant, but some of the earliest set theorists adhered to the mereological conception: Richard Dedekind, in "Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?" (1888), avoided the empty set and used the same symbol for set membership and set inclusion,[14] which are two signs that he conceived of sets mereologically.[15] Similarly, Ernst Schröder, in "Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik" (1890),[16] also used the mereological conception.[15] It was Gottlob Frege, in a 1895 review of Schröder's work,[17] who first laid out the difference between collections and mereological sums.[15] The fact that Ernst Zermelo adopted the collective conception when he wrote his influential 1908 axiomatization of set theory[18][19] is certainly significant for, though it does not fully explain, its current popularity.[15]

In set theory, singletons are "atoms" that have no (non-empty) proper parts; set theory where sets cannot be built up from unit sets is a nonstandard type of set theory, called non-well-founded set theory. The calculus of individuals was thoughtLua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24". to require that an object either have no proper parts, in which case it is an "atom", or be the mereological sum of atoms. Eberle (1970), however, showed how to construct a calculus of individuals lacking "atoms", i.e., one where every object has a "proper part", so that the universe is infinite.

A detailed comparison between mereology, set theory, and a semantic "ensemble theory" is presented in chapter 13 of Bunt (1985);[20] when David Lewis wrote his famous Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24"., he found that "its main thesis had been anticipated in" Bunt's ensemble theory.[21]

#### Parts of Classes

Philosopher David Lewis, in his 1991 work Parts of Classes,[21] axiomatized Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZFC) set theory using only classical mereology, plural quantification, and a primitive singleton-forming operator,[22] governed by axioms that resemble the axioms for "successor" in Peano arithmetic.[23] This contrasts with more usual axiomatizations of ZFC, which use only the primitive notion of membership.[24] Lewis's work is named after his thesis that a class's subclasses are mereological parts of the class (in Lewis's usage, this means that a set's subsets, not counting the empty set, are parts of the set); this thesis has been disputed.[25]

Michael Potter, a creator of Scott–Potter set theory, has criticized Lewis's work for failing to make set theory any more easily comprehensible, since Lewis says of his primitive singleton operator that, given the necessity (perceived by Lewis) of avoiding philosophically motivated mathematical revisionism, "I have to say, gritting my teeth, that somehow, I know not how, we do understand what it means to speak of singletons."[26] Potter says Lewis "could just as easily have said, gritting his teeth, that somehow, he knows not how, we do understand what it means to speak of membership, in which case there would have been no need for the rest of the book."[24]

Forrest (2002) revised Lewis's analysis by first formulating a generalization of CEM, called "Heyting mereology", whose sole nonlogical primitive is Proper Part, assumed transitive and antireflexive. According to this theory, there exists a "fictitious" null individual that is a proper part of every individual; two schemas assert that every lattice join exists (lattices are complete) and that meet distributes over join. On this Heyting mereology, Forrest erects a theory of pseudosets, adequate for all purposes to which sets have been put.

### Foundations of mathematics

Mereology was influential in early conceptions of set theory (see Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24".), which is currently thought of as a foundation for all mathematical theories.[27][28] Even after the currently-dominant "collective" conception of sets became prevalent, mereology has sometimes been developed as an alternative foundation, especially by authors who were nominalists and therefore rejected abstract objects such as sets. The advantage of mereology for nominalists is its relative ontological economy compared to set theory, since mereology, when Uniqueness of Composition is accepted, will generate at most one entity from some given entities (namely their sum or fusion), whereas infinitely many sets are generated from just one urelement (e.g. Wikipedia, {Wikipedia}, {{Wikipedia}}, {{{Wikipedia}}}, {{{{Wikipedia}}}} ...).[3] Some philosophers, such as David Lewis, have gone further and believed that mereological sums are not an additional ontological commitment beyond their elements, although this is disputed.[4]<span title="Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24".">: Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24"., appendix

Mereology may still be valuable to non-nominalists: Eberle (1970) defended the "ontological innocence" of mereology, which is the idea that one can employ mereology regardless of one's ontological stance regarding sets. This innocence results from mereology being formalizable in either of two equivalent ways: quantified variables ranging over a universe of sets, or schematic predicates with a single free variable.

Still, Stanisław Leśniewski and Nelson Goodman, who developed Classical Extensional Mereology, were nominalists,[29] and consciously developed mereology as an alternative to set theory as a foundation of mathematics.[4] Goodman[30] defended the Principle of Nominalism, which states that whenever two entities have the same basic constituents, they are identical.[31] Most mathematicians and philosophers have accepted set theory as a legitimate and valuable foundation for mathematics, effectively rejecting the Principle of Nominalism in favor of some other theory, such as mathematical platonism.[31] David Lewis, whose Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24". attempted to reconstruct set theory using mereology, was also a nominalist.[32]

Richard Milton Martin, who was also a nominalist, employed a version of the calculus of individuals throughout his career, starting in 1941. Goodman and Quine (1947) tried to develop the natural and real numbers using the calculus of individuals, but were mostly unsuccessful; Quine did not reprint that article in his Selected Logic Papers. In a series of chapters in the books he published in the last decade of his life, Richard Milton Martin set out to do what Goodman and Quine had abandoned 30 years prior.{{citation needed|date=January 2026} o ground mathematics in mereology is how to build up the theory of relations while abstaining from set-theoretic definitions of the ordered pair. Martin argued that Eberle's (1970) theory of relational individuals solved this problem.

Burgess and Rosen (1997) provide a survey of attempts to found mathematics without using set theory, such as using mereology.

## General systems theory

In general systems theory, mereological notions of part, whole and boundary are used to describe how complex systems can be decomposed and recomposed. Early work by Mihajlo D. Mesarovic and collaborators on multilevel and hierarchical control treated each level of organization as a system with its own internal structure and environment, while at the same time regarding each level as a component of a more inclusive system.[33] Their formalism makes explicit use of system boundaries, interfaces and mappings between subsystems, and is often cited as a paradigmatic application of rigorous part–whole analysis in systems theory.[34]

A complementary engineering tradition originates with Gabriel Kron's Diakoptics, or "method of tearing", in which a large network or field problem is split into subproblems whose solutions are later recombined to obtain the behaviour of the original system.[35] Later authors showed that diakoptics can be understood using algebraic topology, with the interfaces between subsystems represented by shared chains or cochains, so that the overall method operates on a structured mereological decomposition of the network.[36] Building on Kron, Keith Bowden developed "hierarchical tearing", a multilevel variant in which subsystems are recursively partitioned into sub-subsystems, and argued that diakoptics provides the basis for an "ontology of engineering" that takes networks, components and their interconnections as the primary units of analysis.[37][38] In these approaches, the parts of a system are not merely smaller pieces of the whole but can carry "holographic" information about it, since behaviour at the interfaces encodes constraints coming from the rest of the system.

The same part–whole perspective appears in work that combines mereological ideas with sheaf theory, topos theory and category theory. Joseph Goguen pioneered the use of categories and sheaves in general systems theory and in the semantics of distributed and concurrent systems, treating local behaviours over components or regions as "sections" that can be glued together along their overlaps to produce global behaviour.[39][40] In theoretical computer science, Steve Vickers has argued that locale theory and topos theory provide natural mathematical settings for modelling specifications and state spaces as systems of "observable parts": basic opens correspond to pieces of information, their overlaps encode compatibility, and their joins represent more complete states.[41][42] These frameworks make precise how global structures emerge from compatible local data, closely mirroring mereological intuitions about how wholes depend on patterns of overlap among their parts.

Mereological themes also surface when general systems theory is applied to theoretical physics. Bowden has suggested that diakoptic and holographic methods can be interpreted as forms of "physical computation", in which physical processes perform the calculations required to propagate constraints between parts of a system.[38] Tom Etter has proposed recasting aspects of quantum mechanics in explicitly mereological terms, treating quantum "links" or correlations as relations among parts of a distributed process and arguing that the algebraic structure of quantum theory can be understood as arising from systematic constraints on how such parts fit together.[43][44] In such work, the focus is not only on what entities exist but on how they are nested, overlapped and dynamically related, reinforcing the role of mereology as a unifying formal thread within general systems theory.

## Linguistic semantics

In formal semantics and cognitive science, mereology has been used extensively to model the meanings of mass nouns, count nouns, plurals, measure phrases, and event predicates. A common assumption is that the domain of individuals (and often the domain of events) forms a lattice or sum structure, equipped with a mereological part-of relation and a sum (or fusion) operation.[1][45][46] On this view, entities can combine by sum (fusion) and stand in part–whole relations, and many linguistic phenomena are captured in terms of these operations and relations.

### Mass–count distinction and measure phrases

One of the earliest and most developed applications of mereology in linguistics concerns the mass–count distinction. Bunt's ensemble-theoretic semantics treats mass terms such as water, sand, or gold as denoting sets of mereological sums of small portions of matter, rather than sets of discrete objects.[47] This allows the semantics to capture characteristic properties of mass nouns, such as cumulative reference: if one quantity is water and another is water, then their mereological sum is also water:

* There is water in the glass, and there is water in the jug ⟶ there is water in the glass-and-jug together.

Mereological structures have also been used to analyze measure expressions such as three liters of water or two kilos of rice. In many approaches, a homomorphism maps the mereological domain of quantities of stuff onto a numerical measurement scale, preserving sums: the measure of a sum equals the sum of the measures of its parts, at least when the parts are disjoint.[48][49] This connection between mereology and measurement is used to explain why sentences such as The water in the two bottles weighs three kilos can be interpreted as talking about the total mass of a mereological sum of quantities of water. Mereology has also been applied to more complex mass expressions, including so-called object mass nouns such as furniture, luggage, or jewelry, which behave grammatically like mass nouns but seem to refer to collections of discrete objects. These cases put pressure on simple extensional mereological characterizations of the mass–count distinction and have motivated refinements of the theory and alternative proposals.[50]

### Plurals, distributivity and collectivity

Mereology also plays a central role in semantic theories of plurals. In Link's influential lattice-theoretic approach, singular individual denotations are atoms in a mereological structure, while plural denotations (e.g. the boys) are sums of such atoms.[51] This allows plural predicates to be defined in terms of their behavior on sums. For example, the cumulative behavior of many plural and mass predicates can be stated in mereological terms: * If a and b are sums of boys that laugh, their sum a+b is also something that laughs.

* If a and b are quantities of water, their sum a+b is still water.

* The boys lifted the piano.

On a collective reading, only the sum of boys is required to stand in the lifting relation to the piano. On a distributive reading, each atomic part of that sum (each boy) must lift the piano individually. In Link-style frameworks, distributive readings can be modeled by operators that distribute predicates over the atomic parts of a plural sum, while collective readings apply the predicate to the sum as a whole.[52]

### Events, aspect and verbal predicates

Beyond the nominal domain, mereology has been applied to the semantics of events and aspect. In many event semantics frameworks, events form a mereological structure parallel to that of individuals: complex events are sums of simpler events, and parthood corresponds to temporal or causal inclusion of subevents.[1][53]

Krifka, in particular, links the mereological structure of events to that of nominal reference. He shows that the distinction between telic and atelic verbal predicates parallels the distinction between quantized and cumulative nominal denotations.[54] For example:

* Mary drank beer for ten minutes. – an atelic predicate whose event denotation is closed under taking proper parts: any proper temporal part of a beer-drinking event is still a beer-drinking event.
* Mary drank a glass of beer in ten minutes. – a telic predicate whose event denotation has inherent endpoints: proper subevents in general do not count as completed drink-a-glass-of-beer events.

On this view, the mereology of nominal arguments (for instance, whether an NP denotes a quantized or cumulative set of individuals) can systematically affect the mereological structure of events, and hence the aspectual interpretation of the clause.

Mereological tools have also been used to analyze path expressions and spatial adverbials, for instance in sentences such as The planes flew above and below the clouds. Here, the parts of a complex path or region (segments above vs. below the clouds) can be related to parts of the overall motion event using mereological and often mereotopological relations (parthood plus contact or connection).[55][13]

### Alternative formalisms and limitations

While mereology has provided a powerful set of tools for modeling nominal and event semantics, its application to natural language is not uncontroversial. Nicolas argues that purely mereological (or lattice-theoretic) treatments of mass nouns are too weak to capture certain "intermediate" readings and identity statements involving masses, and advocates using plural logic instead, where mass terms can behave like plural terms that refer to several things at once.[56] Other authors have combined mereology with topological notions (mereotopology) in order to address problems such as the minimal-parts problem and to model notions like connectedness and contact that matter for the interpretation of mass and count expressions.[57]

Moreover, the ordinary-language phrase part of is highly polysemous and context-sensitive. It can express, among other things, spatial inclusion (the handle is part of the door), group membership (She is part of the team), temporal inclusion (that episode is part of the series), and even looser relations of relevance (this is part of the problem). Simons emphasizes that many of these usages do not correspond straightforwardly to a single precise mereological relation, which complicates any attempt to read natural-language part as a simple parthood predicate Pxy.[58]

Because of these difficulties, some authors adopt a cautious stance about the scope of formal mereology in natural language semantics. Casati and Varzi, for example, explicitly restrict their ontology to physical objects and spatial regions, and warn against assuming that all ordinary part–whole talk can be faithfully rendered in terms of a single, global mereological relation.[59] Nonetheless, mereology—often in combination with additional structure such as topology, ordering, or measurement—remains an important component of many contemporary theories of linguistic meaning.

## See also

Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24".

* Achille Varzi (philosopher)
* Emergence
* Glossary of mereology
* Gunk (mereology)
* Holism
* Holon
* Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm
* Laws of Form by G. Spencer-Brown
* Mereological essentialism
* Mereological nihilism
* Mereotopology
* Meronomy
* Meronymy
* Monad
* Plural quantification
* Quantifier variance
* Simple
* Whitehead's point-free geometry

## Notes

1. ↑ Some sources, such as Lando[4] and Koslicki,[5] use the name Classical Extensional Mereology (CEM) for what is here called General Extensional Mereology (GEM). In this article, following the practice of Varzi (1999) and the SEP, the name Classical Extensional Mereology (CEM) is reserved for a weaker theory, defined in § Axiom systems.

Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24".

## References

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Champollion, Lucas; Krifka, Manfred (2016), Aloni, Maria; Dekker, Paul, eds., "Mereology", The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): pp. 369–388, doi:10.1017/cbo9781139236157.014, ISBN 978-1-139-23615-7, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-formal-semantics/mereology/106055146B6A636BA720D4D3F39A38DF, retrieved 2024-04-21
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Cotnoir, A. J.; Varzi, Achille C. (2021). "What is Mereology?". Mereology. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191811647. https://academic.oup.com/book/41620/chapter-abstract/353448521?redirectedFrom=fulltext.
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Varzi, Achille (2019), Zalta, Edward N., ed., Mereology (Spring 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/mereology/, retrieved 2024-04-21
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Lando, Giorgio (2017-06-29) (in en). Mereology: A Philosophical Introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 71. ISBN 978-1-4725-8367-3. https://books.google.com/books?id=w_S4DgAAQBAJ.
5. ↑ Koslicki, Kathrin (2008). The structure of objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-171630-0.
6. ↑ Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan (2004). The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. pp. 424. ISBN 978-1-4051-0679-5.
7. ↑ "Mereology > Notes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2025 Edition)" (in en). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2025/entries/mereology/notes.html.
8. ↑ "The Axiomatic Method in Biology" (in en). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 31 (2): 210–210. 1938-06-01. doi:10.1093/aesa/31.2.210. ISSN 1938-2901. https://academic.oup.com/aesa/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/aesa/31.2.210.
9. ↑ Srzednicki, Jan T. J.; Rickey, V. F., eds (1984). "Leśniewski’s Systems" (in en). Nijhoff International Philosophy Series. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-6089-3. ISSN 0924-4530. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-009-6089-3.
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Simons, Peter M. (1987) (in en). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Clarendon Press. pp. 99. ISBN 978-0-19-824954-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=DgHXAAAAMAAJ.
11. ↑ "Nelson Goodman > The Calculus of Individuals in its different versions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)" (in en). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goodman/supplement.html.
12. ↑ Goodman, Nelson (1977). "The Structure of Appearance" (in en). Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1184-6. ISSN 0068-0346. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-010-1184-6.
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Casati, Roberto; Varzi, Achille C. (1999). Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. ↑ Dedekind, Richard (2012). Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?. Cambridge Library Collection - Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-05038-8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/was-sind-und-was-sollen-die-zahlen/7653DFB46D27713BE341DFAF674B0A6E.
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `:11`
16. ↑ Ernst Schröder (1891) (in German). Vorlesungen über die algebra der logik exakte logik. Princeton University. B. G. Teubner. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_rIFKAAAAYAAJ.
17. ↑ Frege, Gottlob (1895) (in de). Kritische Beleuchtung einiger Punkte in E. Schröders Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik. Teubner. https://books.google.com/books?id=EmiAoAEACAAJ.
18. ↑ Zermelo, E. (1908-06-01). "Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre. I" (in de). Mathematische Annalen 65 (2): 261–281. doi:10.1007/BF01449999. ISSN 1432-1807. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01449999.
19. ↑ Hallett, Michael (2024), Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri, eds., Zermelo's Axiomatization of Set Theory (Fall 2024 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zermelo-set-theory/, retrieved 2025-01-09
20. ↑ Bunt, Harry C. (1985-11-14) (in en). Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-25681-0. https://books.google.com/books?id=zUcWhPeX4psC.
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Lewis, David K. (1991). Parts of classes. Internet Archive. Oxford; Cambridge, Mass. : B. Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-17655-8. https://archive.org/details/partsofclasses0000lewi.
22. ↑ Forrest, Peter (1991-06-01). "Book review: David Lewis. Parts of classes.". Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 32 (3). doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1093635842. ISSN 0029-4527. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093635842.
23. ↑ Cotnoir, A. J.; Varzi, Achille C. (2021) (in en). Mereology. Oxford University Press. pp. 244. ISBN 978-0-19-874900-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ibo0EAAAQBAJ.
24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Potter, Michael (1993). "Review of Parts of Classes". The Philosophical Quarterly 43 (172): 362–366. doi:10.2307/2219902. ISSN 0031-8094. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2219902.
25. ↑ Oliver, Alex (1994). "Are Subclasses Parts of Classes?". Analysis 54 (4): 215–223. doi:10.2307/3328808. ISSN 0003-2638. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3328808.
26. ↑ "Wolfgang Schwarz :: Magic, worlds, numbers, and sets". https://www.umsu.de/wo/2015/630.
27. ↑ Bagaria, Joan (2023), Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri, eds., Set Theory (Spring 2023 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/, retrieved 2025-01-09
28. ↑ "Set Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" (in en-US). https://iep.utm.edu/set-theo/.
29. ↑ Hintikka, Jaakko; Czarnecki, Tadeusz; Kijania-Placek, K.; Placek, Tomasz; Rojszczak, Artur (2013-06-29) (in en). Philosophy and Logic In Search of the Polish Tradition: Essays in Honour of Jan Woleński on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 39. ISBN 978-94-017-0249-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=RiQyBwAAQBAJ.
30. ↑ Goodman, Nelson (1964), Putnam, P. Benacerraf H., ed., "A World of Individuals" Quoted From P. Benacerraf & H. Putnam", Philosophy of Mathematics (Prentice-Hall): pp. 209, https://philpapers.org/rec/GOOAWO, retrieved 2025-01-09
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Linnebo, Øystein (2024), Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri, eds., Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics (Summer 2024 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/, retrieved 2025-01-09
32. ↑ "David Lewis | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" (in en-US). https://iep.utm.edu/d-lewis/.
33. ↑ Mesarovic, Mihajlo D.; Macko, Dako; Takahara, Yasuhiko (1970). Theory of Multilevel, Hierarchical Systems. Mathematics in Science and Engineering. Academic Press.
34. ↑ Drack, Michael; Schwaninger, Markus (2010). "Recent developments in general system theory". Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27 (4): 301–310. doi:10.1002/sres.1013.
35. ↑ Kron, Gabriel (1963). Diakoptics: The Piecewise Solution of Large Systems. London: The Electrician Publishing Company.
36. ↑ Roth, J. P. (1959). "An application of algebraic topology to numerical analysis: On the existence of a solution to the network problem". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 41 (7): 518–521. doi:10.1073/pnas.41.7.518. PMID 16589710.
37. ↑ Bowden, Keith (1994). "Hierarchical Tearing: An Efficient Holographic Algorithm for System Decomposition". International Journal of General Systems 23 (1): 23–37. doi:10.1080/03081079408908027.
38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 Bowden, Keith (1998). "Huygens' Principle, Physics and Computers". International Journal of General Systems 27 (1–3): 9–32. doi:10.1080/03081079808962058. Bibcode: 1998IJGS...27....9B.
39. ↑ Goguen, Joseph A. (1973). "Categorical foundations for general systems theory". International Journal of General Systems 1 (1): 77–129. doi:10.1080/03081077308960801.
40. ↑ Goguen, Joseph A. (1992). "Sheaf semantics for concurrent interacting objects". Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 2 (2): 159–191. doi:10.1017/S0960129500001400.
41. ↑ Vickers, Steven (1989). Topology via Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. 5. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-36062-3.
42. ↑ Vickers, Steven (2007). "Locales and Toposes as Spaces". Handbook of Spatial Logics. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 429–496. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5587-4_8. ISBN 978-1-4020-5586-7.
43. ↑ Etter, Tom (1996). "Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Physics and Computation (PhysComp96)". New England Complex Systems Institute.
44. ↑ Etter, Tom; Noyes, H. Pierre (1998). "Process, system, causality and quantum mechanics". Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 9 (8): 1321–1333. doi:10.1016/S0960-0779(98)00040-8.
45. ↑ Bunt, Harry C. (1985). Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. ↑ Link, Godehard (1983). "The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-theoretical Approach". in Bäuerle, Rainer; Schwarze, Christoph; von Stechow, Arnim. Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 302–323.
47. ↑ Bunt (1985), chs. 2–4.
48. ↑ Krifka, Manfred (1989). "Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics". in Bartsch, Renate; van Benthem, Johan; van Emde Boas, Peter. Semantics and Contextual Expression. Dordrecht: Foris. pp. 75–115.
49. ↑ Champollion, Lucas (2017). Parts of a Whole: Distributivity as a Bridge Between Aspect and Measurement. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. 66. New York: Oxford University Press.
50. ↑ Nicolas, David (2008). "Mass nouns and plural logic". Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2): 211–244. doi:10.1007/s10988-008-9033-2. https://hal.science/ijn_00130930.
51. ↑ Link, Godehard (2002). "The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretic Approach". in Portner, Paul H.; Partee, Barbara H.. Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 127–147.
52. ↑ Champollion, Lucas (2019). "Distributivity in Formal Semantics". Annual Review of Linguistics 5: 289–308. doi:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011819.
53. ↑ Bach, Emmon (1986). "The algebra of events". Lingua 66 (1–2): 5–40. doi:10.1016/0024-3841(86)90087-0.
54. ↑ Krifka, Manfred (1989). "Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics". in Bartsch, Renate; van Benthem, Johan; van Emde Boas, Peter. Semantics and Contextual Expression. Dordrecht: Foris. pp. 75–115.
55. ↑ Krifka, Manfred (1998). "The Mereological Approach to Aspectual Composition". in Rothstein, Susan. Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 197–236.
56. ↑ Nicolas, David (2008). "Mass nouns and plural logic". Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (2): 211–244. doi:10.1007/s10988-008-9033-2. https://hal.science/ijn_00130930.
57. ↑ Grimm, Scott (2012). "A mereotopological approach to the mass/count distinction". Proceedings of SALT 22: 559–582. doi:10.3765/salt.v22i0.2633.
58. ↑ Simons, Peter M. (1987). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 108–123.
59. ↑ Casati, Roberto; Varzi, Achille C. (1999). Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24".

## Sources

* Bowden, Keith, 1991. Hierarchical Tearing: An Efficient Holographic Algorithm for System Decomposition, Int. J. General Systems, Vol. 24(1), pp 23–38.
* Bowden, Keith, 1998. Huygens Principle, Physics and Computers. Int. J. General Systems, Vol. 27(1–3), pp. 9–32.
* Bunt, Harry, 1985. Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge Univ. Press.
* Burgess, John P., and Rosen, Gideon, 1997. A Subject with No Object. Oxford Univ. Press.
* Burkhardt, H., and Dufour, C.A., 1991, "Part/Whole I: History" in Burkhardt, H., and Smith, B., eds., Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology. Muenchen: Philosophia Verlag.
* Casati, Roberto, and Varzi, Achille C., 1999. Parts and Places: the structures of spatial representation. MIT Press.
* Cotnoir, A. J., and Varzi, Achille C., 2021, Mereology, Oxford University Press.
* Eberle, Rolf, 1970. Nominalistic Systems. Kluwer.
* Etter, Tom, 1996. Quantum Mechanics as a Branch of Mereology in Toffoli T., et al., PHYSCOMP96, Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Physics and Computation, New England Complex Systems Institute.
* Etter, Tom, 1998. Process, System, Causality and Quantum Mechanics. SLAC-PUB-7890, Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre.
* Forrest, Peter, 2002, "Nonclassical mereology and its application to sets", Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 43: 79–94.
* Gerla, Giangiacomo, (1995). "Pointless Geometries", in Buekenhout, F., Kantor, W. eds., "Handbook of incidence geometry: buildings and foundations". North-Holland: 1015–31.
* Goodman, Nelson, 1977 (1951). The Structure of Appearance. Kluwer.
* Goodman, Nelson, and Quine, Willard, 1947, "Steps toward a constructive nominalism", Journal of Symbolic Logic 12: 97–122.
* Gruszczynski, R., and Pietruszczak, A., 2008, "Full development of Tarski's geometry of solids", Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14: 481–540. A system of geometry based on Lesniewski's mereology, with basic properties of mereological structures.
* Hovda, Paul, 2008, "What is classical mereology?" Journal of Philosophical Logic 38(1): 55–82.
* Husserl, Edmund, 1970. Logical Investigations, Vol. 2. Findlay, J.N., trans. Routledge.
* Kron, Gabriel, 1963, Diakoptics: The Piecewise Solution of Large Scale Systems. Macdonald, London.
* Lewis, David K., 1991. Parts of Classes. Blackwell.
* Leonard, H. S., and Goodman, Nelson, 1940, "The calculus of individuals and its uses", Journal of Symbolic Logic 5: 45–55.
* Leśniewski, Stanisław, 1992. Collected Works. Surma, S.J., Srzednicki, J.T., Barnett, D.I., and Rickey, V.F., editors and translators. Kluwer.
* Lucas, J. R., 2000. Conceptual Roots of Mathematics. Routledge. Ch. 9.12 and 10 discuss mereology, mereotopology, and the related theories of A.N. Whitehead, all strongly influenced by the unpublished writings of David Bostock.
* Mesarovic, M.D., Macko, D., and Takahara, Y., 1970, "Theory of Multilevel, Hierarchical Systems". Academic Press.
* Nicolas, David, 2008, "Mass nouns and plural logic", Linguistics and Philosophy 31(2): 211–44.
* Pietruszczak, Andrzej, 1996, "Mereological sets of distributive classes", Logic and Logical Philosophy 4: 105–22. Constructs, using mereology, mathematical entities from set theoretical classes.
* Pietruszczak, Andrzej, 2005, "Pieces of mereology", Logic and Logical Philosophy 14: 211–34. Basic mathematical properties of Lesniewski's mereology.
* Pietruszczak, Andrzej, 2018, Metamerology, Nicolaus Copernicus University Scientific Publishing House.
* Potter, Michael, 2004.  Set Theory and Its Philosophy. Oxford Univ. Press.
* Simons, Peter, 1987 (reprinted 2000). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford Univ. Press.
* Srzednicki, J. T. J., and Rickey, V. F., eds., 1984. Lesniewski's Systems: Ontology and Mereology. Kluwer.
* Tarski, Alfred, 1984 (1956), "Foundations of the Geometry of Solids" in his Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers 1923–38. Woodger, J., and Corcoran, J., eds. and trans. Hackett.
* Varzi, Achille C., 2007, "Spatial Reasoning and Ontology: Parts, Wholes, and Locations" in Aiello, M. et al., eds., Handbook of Spatial Logics. Springer-Verlag: 945–1038.
* Whitehead, A. N., 1916, "La Theorie Relationiste de l'Espace", Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale 23: 423–454. Translated as Hurley, P.J., 1979, "The relational theory of space", Philosophy Research Archives 5: 712–741.
* \

, 1919. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge. Cambridge Univ. Press. 2nd ed., 1925.
* \

, 1920. The Concept of Nature. Cambridge Univ. Press. 2004 paperback, Prometheus Books. Being the 1919 Tarner Lectures delivered at Trinity College, Cambridge.
* \

, 1978 (1929). Process and Reality. Free Press.
* Woodger, J. H., 1937. The Axiomatic Method in Biology. Cambridge Univ. Press.

## External links

* Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
* "Material Composition" – David Cornell
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
* "Mereology" – Achille Varzi
* "Boundary" – Achille Varzi

Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24".

Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter has terminated with signal "24".

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mereology&oldid=4306279"