Leon Chwistek’s Theory of Constructive Types

  • Bernard Linsky
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 16)

From the readily available sources in English one can learn that Leon Chwistek was born in 1884 in Zakopane, studied logic at Göttingen briefly during 1908 and 1909, at Krakow under Ślezyński and Zaremba, and then taught in a secondary school in Krakow for several years.1 After 1929 Chwistek was a Professor of Logic at the University of Lwów in a position for which Alfred Tarski had also applied. His interests in the 1930s were in a general system of philosophy of science, published in 1948 in English as The Limits of Science.


Type Theory Simple Theory Extensional Function Constructive Type High Order Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, C. Anthony. “Russellian Intensional Logic”, in Themes from Kaplan, J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein, eds., New York: Oxford University Press, 1989: 67–103.Google Scholar
  2. Carnap, Rudolf. Notes on Chwistek, Manuscript RC 081-25-01, Carnap Papers, Archive of Scientific Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, 1932.Google Scholar
  3. Carnap, Rudolf. Meaning and Necessity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1947.Google Scholar
  4. Church, Alonzo. “A bibliography of Symbolic Logic.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1, 1936: 121–192.Google Scholar
  5. Church, Alonzo. Review of Leon Chwistek, Überwindung des Begriffsrealismus, in Journal of Symbolic Logic, 2, 1937: 168–170.Google Scholar
  6. Church, Alonzo. “Comparison of Russell’s Resolution of the Semantical Antinomies with that of Tarski”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41, 1976: 747–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Church, Alonzo. “Schröder’s Anticipation of the Simple Theory of Types”, Erkenntnis, 10, 1976: 407-411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chwistek, Leon. “Antynomje Logiki Formalnej”, Przeglad Filozoficzny 24, 1921: 164–71. Translated as “Antinomies of Formal Logic” by Z. Jordan in McCall, 1967, 338–345.Google Scholar
  9. Chwistek, Leon. “Über die Antinomien der Prinzipien der Mathematik”, Mathematische Zeitschrift 14, 1922: 236–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chwistek, Leon. “The Theory of Constructive Types, (Principles of Logic and Mathematics), Part I”, Annales de la Société Polonaise de Mathématique (Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Matematycznego), Vol. II (for 1923), 1924: 9–48.Google Scholar
  11. Chwistek, Leon. “The Theory of Constructive Types, (Principles of Logic and Mathematics) Part II”, Vol. III (for 1924), 1925: 92–141.Google Scholar
  12. Chwistek, Leon. The Limits of Science, trans. E. Brodie, London: Kegan Paul, 1948.Google Scholar
  13. Copi, Irving M. “The Inconsistency or Redundancy of Principia Mathematica.”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, XI, 1950–1951: 190–199.Google Scholar
  14. Feferman, Anita Burdman and Feferman, Solomon. Alfred Tarski: Life and Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  15. Gödel. Kurt Gödel: Collected Works, Vol.IV, Solomon Feferman, et. al., eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. Grattan-Guinness, Ivor. The Search for Mathematical Roots: 1870-1940, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. Hatcher, William S. Foundations of Mathematics, Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1968.Google Scholar
  18. Jadacki, Jan. J. “Leon Chwistek - Bertrand Russell’s Scientific Correspondence.” Dialectics and Humanism: The Polish Philosophical Quarterly, XIII(1), 1986: 239–263.Google Scholar
  19. Linsky, Bernard. “Leon Chwistek on the No-Classes Theory of Principia Mathematica.” History and Philosophy of Logic, 25, 2004a: 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linsky, Bernard. “Classes of Classes and Classes of Functions in Principia Mathematica”, Godehard Link, ed. One Hundred Years of Russell’s Paradox, Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004b: 435–447.Google Scholar
  21. McCall, Storrs, ed. Polish Logic: 1920–1939, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  22. Myhill, John. “The Undefinability of the Set of Natural Numbers in the Ramified Principia” , in George Nakhnikian, ed., Bertrand Russell’s Philosophy, London: Duckworth, 1974: 19–27.Google Scholar
  23. Myhill, John. “A Refutation of an Unjustified Attack on the Axiom of Reducibility”, in Bertrand Russell Memorial Volume, H.D. Lewis, ed., George Allen and Unwin, 1979: 81–90.Google Scholar
  24. Ramsey, Frank P. “The Foundations of Mathematics”, in The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1931.Google Scholar
  25. Robinsohn, Abraham. “On the Independence of the Axioms of Definiteness (Axiome der Bestimmtheit)”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 4, 1939: 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Russell, Bertrand. “Mathematical Logic as Based on the Theory of Types”, in Bertrand Russell: Logic and Knowledge; Essays 1901–1950, R. Marsh, ed., London: George Allen and Unwin, 1956: 59–102.Google Scholar
  27. Russell, Bertrand. “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism”, in Marsh, 177–281.Google Scholar
  28. Smullyan, Arthur F. “Modality and Descriptions”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13, 1948: 31–7. Reprinted in Linsky, Leonard, ed., Reference and Modality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971, 35–43.Google Scholar
  29. Tarski, Alfred. Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938, translated into English and edited by Joseph H. Woodger. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.Google Scholar
  30. Whitehead, A.N., and Russell, B.A. ([PM]) Principia Mathematica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910–1913, second ed., 1925–1927.Google Scholar
  31. Weyl, Herman. Das Kontinuum, Leipzig: Veit, 1918.Google Scholar
  32. Wolenski, Jan. Logic and Philosophy in the Lvov-Warsaw School, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard Linsky
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations