
@article{bittner_formal_2018,
  title = {Formal Ontology of Space, Time, and Physical Entities in Classical Mechanics},
  author = {Bittner, Thomas},
  year = {2018},
  month = jan,
  volume = {13},
  pages = {135--179},
  issn = {1570-5838},
  doi = {10.3233/AO-180195},
  abstract = {Classical (i.e., non-quantum) mechanics is the foundation of many models of dynamical physical phenomena. As such those models inherit the ontological commitments inherent in the underlying physics. Therefore, building an ontology of dynamic phenomen},
  journal = {Applied Ontology},
  language = {en},
  number = {2}
}

@article{calosi_elegant_2020,
  title = {An Elegant Universe},
  author = {Calosi, Claudio},
  year = {2020},
  month = nov,
  volume = {197},
  pages = {4767--4782},
  issn = {1573-0964},
  doi = {10.1007/s11229-015-0952-5},
  abstract = {David Lewis famously endorsed Unrestricted Composition. His defense of such a controversial principle builds on the alleged innocence of mereology. This innocence defense has come under different attacks in the last decades. In this paper I pursue another line of defense, that stems from some early remarks by van Inwagen. I argue that Unrestricted Composition leads to a better metaphysics. In particular I provide new arguments for the following claims: Unrestricted Composition entails extensionality of composition, functionality of location and four-dimensionalism in the metaphysics of persistence. Its endorsement yields an impressively coherent and powerful metaphysical picture. This picture shows a universe that might not be innocent but it is certainly elegant.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/A2FFL48W/Calosi - 2020 - An elegant universe.pdf},
  journal = {Synthese},
  language = {en},
  number = {11}
}

@book{casati_parts_1999,
  title = {Parts and {{Places}}. {{The Structures}} of {{Spatial Representation}}},
  author = {Casati, Roberto and Varzi, Achille C.},
  year = {1999},
  publisher = {{MIT Press}},
  address = {{Cambridge, Mass.}},
  abstract = {Thinking about space is thinking about spatial things. The table is on the carpet; hence the carpet is under the table. The vase is in the box; hence the box is not in the vase. But what does it mean for an object to be somewhere? How are objects tied to the space they occupy? This book is concerned with these and other fundamental issues in the philosophy of spatial representation. Our starting point is an analysis of the interplay between mereology (the study of part/whole relations), topology (the study of spatial continuity and compactness), and the theory of spatial location proper. This leads to a unified framework for spatial representation understood quite broadly as a theory of the representation of spatial entities. The framework is then tested against some classical metaphysical questions such as: Are parts essential to their wholes? Is spatial colocation a sufficient criterion of identity? What (if anything) distinguishes material objects from events and other spatial entities? The concluding chapters deal with applications to topics as diverse as the logical analysis of movement and the semantics of maps.}
}

@article{cotnoir_antisymmetry_2010,
  title = {Anti-{{Symmetry}} and {{Non}}-{{Extensional Mereology}}},
  author = {Cotnoir, Aaron J.},
  year = {2010},
  month = apr,
  volume = {60},
  pages = {396--405},
  issn = {0031-8094},
  doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9213.2009.649.x},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/6JMFXEZP/Cotnoir - 2010 - Anti‐Symmetry and Non‐Extensional Mereology.pdf},
  journal = {The Philosophical Quarterly},
  number = {239}
}

@article{cotnoir_does_2016,
  title = {Does {{Universalism Entail Extensionalism}}?},
  author = {Cotnoir, A. J.},
  year = {2016},
  month = mar,
  volume = {50},
  pages = {121--132},
  issn = {1468-0068},
  doi = {10.1111/nous.12063},
  abstract = {Does a commitment to mereological universalism automatically bring along a commitment to the controversial doctrine of mereological extensionalism\textemdash the view that objects with the same proper parts are identical? A recent argument suggests the answer is `yes'. This paper attempts a systematic response to the argument, considering nearly every available line of reply. It argues that only one approach\textemdash the mutual parts view\textemdash can yield a viable mereology where universalism does not entail extensionalism.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/2VD42JSI/Cotnoir - 2016 - Does Universalism Entail Extensionalism.pdf},
  journal = {No\^us},
  language = {en},
  number = {1}
}

@article{cotnoir_is_2018,
  title = {Is {{Weak Supplementation}} Analytic?},
  author = {Cotnoir, Aaron J.},
  year = {2018},
  month = dec,
  issn = {1573-0964},
  doi = {10.1007/s11229-018-02066-9},
  abstract = {Mereological principles are often controversial; perhaps the most stark contrast is between those who claim that Weak Supplementation is analytic\textemdash constitutive of our notion of proper parthood\textemdash and those who argue that the principle is simply false, and subject to many counterexamples. The aim of this paper is to diagnose the source of this dispute. I'll suggest that the dispute has arisen by participants failing to be sensitive to two different conceptions of proper parthood: the outstripping conception and the non-identity conception. I'll argue that the outstripping conception (together with a specific set of definitions for other mereological notions), can deliver the analyticity of Weak Supplementation on at least one sense of `analyticity'. I'll also suggest that the non-identity conception cannot do so independently of considerations to do with mereological extensionality.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/KILE578L/Cotnoir - 2018 - Is Weak Supplementation analytic.pdf},
  journal = {Synthese},
  language = {en}
}

@article{cotnoir_non-wellfounded_2012,
  title = {Non-{{Wellfounded Mereology}}},
  author = {Cotnoir, Aaron J. and Bacon, Andrew},
  year = {2012},
  month = jun,
  volume = {5},
  pages = {187--204},
  abstract = {{$<$}div class="title"{$>$}NON-WELLFOUNDED MEREOLOGY{$<$}/div{$>$} - Volume 5 Issue 2 - AARON J. COTNOIR, ANDREW BACON},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/NJUP2FP7/Cotnoir and Bacon - 2012 - NON-WELLFOUNDED MEREOLOGY.pdf},
  journal = {The Review of Symbolic Logic},
  number = {2}
}

@article{cotnoir_strange_2013,
  title = {Strange {{Parts}}: {{The Metaphysics}} of {{Non}}-Classical {{Mereologies}}},
  shorttitle = {Strange {{Parts}}},
  author = {Cotnoir, A. J.},
  year = {2013},
  month = sep,
  volume = {8},
  pages = {834--845},
  issn = {1747-9991},
  doi = {10.1111/phc3.12061},
  abstract = {The dominant theory of parts and wholes \textendash{} classical extensional mereology \textendash{} has faced a number of challenges in the recent literature. This article gives a sampling of some of the alleged counterexamples to some of the more controversial principles involving the connections between parthood and identity. Along the way, some of the main revisionary approaches are reviewed. First, counterexamples to extensionality are reviewed. The `supplementation' axioms that generate extensionality are examined more carefully, and a suggested revision is considered. Second, the paper considers an alternative approach that focuses the blame on antisymmetry but allows us to keep natural supplementation axioms. Third, we look at counterexamples to the idempotency of composition and the associated `parts just once' principle. We explore options for developing weaker mereologies that avoid such commitments.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/Q9S8XSQ4/Cotnoir - 2013 - Strange Parts The Metaphysics of Non-classical Me.pdf},
  journal = {Philosophy Compass},
  language = {en},
  number = {9}
}

@article{donnelly_using_2011,
  title = {Using {{Mereological Principles}} to {{Support Metaphysics}}},
  author = {Donnelly, Maureen},
  year = {2011},
  volume = {61},
  pages = {225--246},
  issn = {1467-9213},
  doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.683.x},
  abstract = {Mereological principles are sometimes used to support general claims about the structure and arrangement of objects in the world. I focus initially on one such mereological principle, the weak supplementation principle (WSP). It is not obvious that (WSP) is prescribed by ordinary thinking about parthood. Further, (WSP) is not needed for a fairly strong formal characterization of the part\textendash whole relation. For these reasons, some arguments relying on (WSP) might be countered by simply denying (WSP). I argue more generally that there is no reason to assume that one core mereology functions as a common basis for all plausible metaphysical theories.},
  copyright = {\textcopyright{} 2010 The Author The Philosophical Quarterly\textcopyright{} 2010 The Editors of The Philosophical Quarterly},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/UAES4ZEX/Donnelly - 2011 - Using Mereological Principles to Support Metaphysi.pdf},
  journal = {The Philosophical Quarterly},
  language = {en},
  number = {243}
}

@article{eberle_complete_1967,
  title = {Some Complete Calculi of Individuals.},
  author = {Eberle, Rolf A.},
  year = {1967},
  volume = {8},
  pages = {267--278},
  issn = {0029-4527, 1939-0726},
  doi = {10.1305/ndjfl/1094068838},
  abstract = {Project Euclid - mathematics and statistics online},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/9GJCET3C/Eberle - 1967 - Some complete calculi of individuals..pdf},
  journal = {Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic},
  language = {en},
  mrnumber = {MR0234816},
  number = {4},
  zmnumber = {0183.00803}
}

@article{forrest_nonclassical_2002,
  title = {Nonclassical {{Mereology}} and {{Its Application}} to {{Sets}}},
  author = {Forrest, Peter},
  year = {2002},
  month = apr,
  volume = {43},
  pages = {79--94},
  publisher = {{University of Notre Dame}},
  issn = {0029-4527, 1939-0726},
  doi = {10.1305/ndjfl/1071509430},
  abstract = {Part One of this paper is a case against classical mereology and for Heyting mereology. This case proceeds by first undermining the appeal of classical mereology and then showing how it fails to cohere with our intuitions about a measure of quantity. Part Two shows how Heyting mereology provides an account of sets and classes without resort to any nonmereological primitive.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/XWYNDZJI/Forrest - 2002 - Nonclassical Mereology and Its Application to Sets.pdf},
  journal = {Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic},
  keywords = {class,fusion,measure,mereology,set,sum},
  language = {EN},
  mrnumber = {MR2033318},
  number = {2},
  zmnumber = {1049.03003}
}

@article{hazarika_using_nodate,
  title = {Using {{SPASS}} for Proving Theorems within {{Mereotopology}}},
  author = {Hazarika, Shyamanta M. and Cohn, Anthony G.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/KFNLZZQB/Hazarika and Cohn - Using SPASS for proving theorems within Mereotopol.pdf}
}

@article{hovda_what_2009,
  title = {What Is {{Classical Mereology}}?},
  author = {Hovda, Paul},
  year = {2009},
  month = feb,
  volume = {38},
  pages = {55--82},
  issn = {0022-3611, 1573-0433},
  doi = {10.1007/s10992-008-9092-4},
  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, a},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/AWBEC5S6/Hovda - 2009 - What is Classical Mereology.pdf},
  journal = {Journal of Philosophical Logic},
  language = {en},
  number = {1}
}

@article{kearns_can_2011,
  title = {Can a {{Thing}} Be {{Part}} of {{Itself}}?},
  author = {Kearns, Stephen},
  year = {2011},
  volume = {48},
  pages = {87--93},
  issn = {0003-0481},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/HKYDR2EN/Kearns - 2011 - CAN A THING BE PART OF ITSELF.pdf},
  journal = {American Philosophical Quarterly},
  number = {1}
}

@article{leonard_calculus_1940,
  title = {The {{Calculus}} of {{Individuals}} and {{Its Uses}}},
  author = {Leonard, Henry S. and Goodman, Nelson},
  year = {1940},
  volume = {5},
  pages = {45--55},
  issn = {0022-4812},
  doi = {10.2307/2266169},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/MGI3VWSF/Leonard and Goodman - 1940 - The Calculus of Individuals and Its Uses.pdf},
  journal = {The Journal of Symbolic Logic},
  number = {2}
}

@inproceedings{masolo_atomicity_1999,
  title = {Atomicity vs. {{Infinite Divisibility}} of {{Space}}},
  booktitle = {Spatial {{Information Theory}}. {{Cognitive}} and {{Computational Foundations}} of {{Geographic Information Science}}},
  author = {Masolo, Claudio and Vieu, Laure},
  year = {1999},
  month = aug,
  pages = {235--250},
  publisher = {{Springer}},
  address = {{Berlin}},
  doi = {10.1007/3-540-48384-5_16},
  abstract = {In qualitative spatial reasoning, the last ten years have brought a lot of results on theories of spatial properties and relations taking regions of space as primitive entities. In particular, the axiomatization of mereotopologies has been extensively studied. However, properties of space such as divisibility, density and atomicity haven't attracted much attention in this context. Nevertheless, atomicity is especially important if one seeks to build a bridge between spatial reasoning and spatial databases approaches in areas like vision or GIS. In this paper we will investigate the possibility of characterizing such properties in spaces modeled by mereologies and mereotopologies. In addition, properties of atoms like extension and self-connectedness will be considered.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/N252IVA9/Masolo and Vieu - 1999 - Atomicity vs. Infinite Divisibility of Space.pdf},
  isbn = {978-3-540-66365-2 978-3-540-48384-7},
  series = {Lecture {{Notes}} in {{Computer Science}}}
}

@article{obojska_remarks_2013,
  title = {Some {{Remarks}} on {{Supplementation Principles}} in the {{Absence}} of {{Antisymmetry}}},
  author = {Obojska, Lidia},
  year = {2013},
  month = jun,
  volume = {6},
  pages = {343--347},
  issn = {1755-0203, 1755-0211},
  doi = {10.1017/S1755020312000330},
  abstract = {In response to the paper by Cotnoir and Bacon published in RSL 2/2012, we would like to add some remarks regarding supplementation principles. It is known that in a classical mereology, the Strong Supplementation Principle (SSP) together with antisymmetry enforces the Weak Supplementation Principle (WSP). Instead, in the nonwellfounded mereology, the failure of extensionality causes the failure of antisymmetry (Cotnoir, 2010), hence the investigated model is also nonantisymmetric. Cotnoir supposes that the failure of antisymmetry implies the failure of (WSP) when (PP1) is applied, however gives no explicit argument, which we would like to supply in this paper. Additionally, when (PP2) is applied, (SSP) implies (WSP), hence the failure of antisymmetry does not necessarily imply the failure of (WSP).},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/YAPW5SW3/Obojska - 2013 - SOME REMARKS ON SUPPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES IN THE .pdf},
  journal = {The Review of Symbolic Logic},
  language = {en},
  number = {2}
}

@unpublished{parsons_extensionalists_nodate,
  title = {An {{Extensionalist}}'s {{Guide}} to {{Non}}-{{Extensional Mereology}}},
  author = {Parsons, Josh},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/ZUJU4SDB/PARAEG.pdf}
}

@incollection{parsons_many_2014,
  title = {The {{Many Primitives}} of {{Mereology}}},
  booktitle = {Mereology and {{Location}}},
  author = {Parsons, Josh},
  year = {2014},
  month = jan,
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
  address = {{Oxford}},
  abstract = {Formal mereologies are axiomatized in a variety of different ways, with a variety of different primitives. This chapter distinguishes three such ways, whose primitives are part, overlap, and proper part respectively. Not every mereology can be axiomatized in every way. This chapter contains a description of what formal features a mereology much have in order to be successfully axiomatizable in each way.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/J4Y3XH6E/Shieva Kleinschmidt - Mereology and Location (2014, Oxford University Press).pdf},
  isbn = {978-0-19-175891-1},
  language = {en\_US}
}

@book{pietruszczak_metamereology_2018,
  title = {Metamereology},
  author = {Pietruszczak, Andrzej},
  year = {2018},
  publisher = {{Nicolaus Copernicus University Scientific Publishing House}},
  address = {{Turun}},
  abstract = {Our aim in this book is not simply to provide an introduction to the topic of mereology but also to undertake a thorough analysis of it. Hence its name: \&quot;Metamereology\&quot;. Mereology arose as a theory of collective sets. It was formulated by the Polish logician Stanis\l aw Le\'sniewski. Collective sets are certain wholes composed of parts. In general, the concept of a collective set can be defined with the help of the relation \&quot;is a part of\&quot; and mereology may therefore be considered as a theory of the relation of part to the whole\&\#39;\&\#39; (from the Greek: meros, \&quot;part\&\#39;\&\#39;).},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/26IRTHGU/PIETRUSZCZAK - 2018 - Metamereology.pdf},
  isbn = {978-83-231-3975-1}
}

@article{pontow_note_2004,
  title = {A Note on the Axiomatics of Theories in Parthood},
  author = {Pontow, Carsten},
  year = {2004},
  month = aug,
  volume = {50},
  pages = {195--213},
  issn = {0169-023X},
  doi = {10.1016/j.datak.2003.12.002},
  abstract = {We discuss the axiomatic base of some of the most prominent theories of parthood (mereologies), in particular of General (Classical) Extensional Mereology (GEM). Parthood is axiomatized in GEM as a partial ordering to which a supplementation axiom and a general summing axiom are added. In this paper, we disprove the common assumption that it makes no difference for the strength of the resulting theory whether in the above framework the so-called Strong or the Weak Supplementation Principle is taken as supplementation axiom. We further show some more counterexamples to common assertions from literature concerning the interdependance of some of the axioms of the various mereological theories. It turns out that only the Strong Supplementation Principle is sufficient to fit the theories with a strong kind of extensionality.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/YTGU7QAR/1-s2.0-S0169023X03001915-main.pdf},
  journal = {Data \& Knowledge Engineering},
  number = {2}
}

@phdthesis{sen_computational_2017,
  title = {Computational {{Axiomatic Science}}},
  author = {Sen, Atriya},
  year = {2017},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/5IF4GA36/Sen - 2017 - Computational Axiomatic Science.pdf},
  school = {Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute}
}

@book{simons_parts:_1987,
  title = {Parts: {{A Study}} in {{Ontology}}},
  shorttitle = {Parts},
  author = {Simons, Peter},
  year = {1987},
  publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
  address = {{Oxford}},
  abstract = {Although the relationship of part to whole is one of the most fundamental there is, this is the first full-length study of this key concept. Showing that mereology, or the formal theory of part and whole, is essential to ontology, Simons surveys and critiques previous theories--especially the standard extensional view--and proposes a new account that encompasses both temporal and modal considerations. Simons's revised theory not only allows him to offer fresh solutions to long-standing problems, but also has far-reaching consequences for our understanding of a host of classical philosophical concepts.},
  isbn = {978-0-19-824954-2},
  language = {en}
}

@article{smith_mereology_2009,
  title = {Mereology without {{Weak Supplementation}}},
  author = {Smith, Donald},
  year = {2009},
  month = sep,
  volume = {87},
  pages = {505--511},
  issn = {0004-8402},
  doi = {10.1080/00048400802215703},
  abstract = {According to the Weak Supplementation Principle (WSP)\textemdash a widely received principle of mereology\textemdash an object with a proper part, p, has another distinct proper part that doesn't overlap p. In a recent article in this journal, Nikk Effingham and Jon Robson employ WSP in an objection to endurantism. I defend endurantism in a way that bears on mereology in general. First, I argue that denying WSP can be motivated apart from the truth of endurantism. I then go on to offer an explanation of WSP's initial appeal, argue that denying WSP fails to have untoward consequences for the rest of mereology, and show that the falsity of WSP is consistent with a primary guiding thought behind it.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/C85VXCWB/Smith - 2009 - Mereology without Weak Supplementation.pdf},
  journal = {Australasian Journal of Philosophy},
  number = {3}
}

@incollection{tarski_foundations_1983,
  title = {Foundations of the {{Geometry}} of {{Solids}}},
  booktitle = {Logic, {{Semantics}}, {{Metamathematics}}},
  author = {Tarski, Alfred},
  year = {1983},
  edition = {Second},
  pages = {24--29},
  publisher = {{Hackett Publishing}},
  address = {{Indianapolis}}
}

@article{varzi_extensionality_2008,
  title = {The {{Extensionality}} of {{Parthood}} and {{Composition}}},
  author = {Varzi, Achille C.},
  year = {2008},
  month = jan,
  volume = {58},
  pages = {108--133},
  issn = {0031-8094},
  doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.542.x},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/DZZS8PFN/Varzi - 2008 - The Extensionality of Parthood and Composition.pdf},
  journal = {The Philosophical Quarterly},
  number = {230}
}

@incollection{varzi_mereology_2016,
  title = {Mereology},
  booktitle = {The {{Stanford Encyclopedia}} of {{Philosophy}}},
  author = {Varzi, Achille C.},
  editor = {Zalta, Edward N.},
  year = {2016},
  edition = {Winter 2016},
  publisher = {{Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}},
  abstract = {Mereology (from the Greek {$\mu\epsilon\rhoo\varsigma$},`part') is the theory of parthood relations: of therelations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a whole.[1] Its roots can be traced back to the early days of philosophy,beginning with the Presocratics and continuing throughout the writingsof Plato (especially the Parmenides and theTheaetetus), Aristotle (especially the Metaphysics,but also the Physics, the Topics, and Departibus animalium), and Boethius (especially DeDivisione and In Ciceronis Topica). Mereology occupies aprominent role also in the writings of medieval ontologists andscholastic philosophers such as Garland the Computist, Peter Abelard,Thomas Aquinas, Raymond Lull, John Duns Scotus, Walter Burley, Williamof Ockham, and Jean Buridan, as well as in Jungius's LogicaHamburgensis (1638), Leibniz's Dissertatio de artecombinatoria (1666) and Monadology (1714), and Kant'searly writings (the Gedanken of 1747 and the Monadologiaphysica of 1756). As a formal theory of parthood relations,however, mereology made its way into our times mainly through the workof Franz Brentano and of his pupils, especially Husserl's thirdLogical Investigation (1901). The latter may rightly beconsidered the first attempt at a thorough formulation of a theory,though in a format that makes it difficult to disentangle the analysisof mereological concepts from that of other ontologically relevantnotions (such as the relation of ontological dependence).[2] It is not until Le\'sniewski's Foundations of the GeneralTheory of Sets (1916) and his Foundations of Mathematics(1927\textendash 1931) that a pure theory of part-relations was given anexact formulation.[3] And because Le\'sniewski's work was largely inaccessible tonon-speakers of Polish, it is only with the publication of Leonard andGoodman's The Calculus of Individuals (1940), partly underthe influence of Whitehead, that mereology has become a chapter ofcentral interest for modern ontologists and metaphysicians.[4], In the following we focus mostly on contemporary formulations ofmereology as they grew out of these recenttheories\textemdash Le\'sniewski's and Leonard and Goodman's. Indeed,although such theories come in different logical guises, they aresufficiently similar to be recognized as a common basis for mostsubsequent developments. To properly assess the relative strengths andweaknesses, however, it will be convenient to proceed in steps. Firstwe consider some core mereological notions and principles. Then weproceed to an examination of the stronger theories that can be erectedon that basis.}
}

@article{varzi_note_2006,
  title = {A {{Note}} on the {{Transitivity}} of {{Parthood}}},
  author = {Varzi, Achille C.},
  year = {2006},
  volume = {1},
  pages = {141--146},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/24DLQ9ZA/Varzi - A Note on the Transitivity of Parthood.pdf},
  journal = {Applied Ontology},
  number = {2}
}

@article{varzi_parts_1996,
  title = {Parts, Wholes, and Part-Whole Relations: {{The}} Prospects of Mereotopology},
  shorttitle = {Parts, Wholes, and Part-Whole Relations},
  author = {Varzi, Achille C.},
  year = {1996},
  month = nov,
  volume = {20},
  pages = {259--286},
  issn = {0169-023X},
  doi = {10.1016/S0169-023X(96)00017-1},
  abstract = {We can see mereology as a theory of parthood and topology as a theory of wholeness. How can the two be combined to obtain a unified theory of parts and wholes'? This paper examines three main ways of answering this question. On the first account, mereology and topology form two independent (though mutually related) domains. The second account grants priority to topology and characterizes mereology derivatively, by defining parthood in terms of wholeness (more specifically: connectedness). The third approach reverses the order, exploiting the idea that wholeness (connectedness) can be explained in terms of parthood along with other predicates or relations. The analysis and comparison of these strategies is mostly formal (and within the confines of standard first-order theories), but their relevance to spatio-temporal reasoning and representation is emphasized. Some more speculative strategies and directions for further research, such as the development of a unified framework based on a single mereotopological primitive of connected parthood, are also briefly considered.},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/MDZC3I65/Varzi - 1996 - Parts, wholes, and part-whole relations The prosp.pdf},
  journal = {Data \& Knowledge Engineering},
  number = {3},
  series = {Modeling {{Parts}} and {{Wholes}}}
}

@article{varzi_universalism_2009,
  title = {Universalism Entails {{Extensionalism}}},
  author = {Varzi, Achille C.},
  year = {2009},
  month = oct,
  volume = {69},
  pages = {599--604},
  issn = {0003-2638},
  doi = {10.1093/analys/anp102},
  file = {/Users/benblumson/Zotero/storage/RNPCADT2/Varzi - 2009 - Universalism entails Extensionalism.pdf},
  journal = {Analysis},
  number = {4}
}


