Naive Structure, Contraction and Paradox

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Lionel Shapiro
• 关键词：Substructural logics ; Structural and logical rules ; Noncontractive logics ; Curry’s paradox ; Liar paradox
• 刊名：Topoi
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：April 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：34
• 期：1
• 页码：75-87
• 全文大小：642 KB
• 参考文献：1. Anderson, A, Belnap, N (1975) Entailment: the logic of relevance and necessity, vol 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton
  2. Asmus, C (2009) Restricted arrow. J Philos Log 38: pp. 405-431 CrossRef
  3. Bacon, A (2013) Curry’s paradox and ω-inconsistency. Stud Logica 101: pp. 1-9 CrossRef
  4. Beall J (2013) Free of detachment: logic, rationality, and gluts. Nous. doi:10.1111/nous.12029
  5. Beall, J, Murzi, J (2013) Two flavors of Curry’s paradox. J Philos 110: pp. 143-165
  6. Belnap N (1993) Life in the undistributed middle. In: Schroeder-Heister P, Do?en K (eds) Substructural logics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 31-1
  7. Brady, R (2006) Universal logic. CSLI Publications, Stanford
  8. Cook R (2014) There is no paradox of logical validity! Logica Universalis. doi:10.1007/s11787-014-0094-4
  9. Deutsch, H (2010) Diagonalization and truth functional operators. Analysis 70: pp. 215-217 CrossRef
  10. Do?en, K (1989) Logical constants as punctuation marks. Notre Dame J Formal Log 30: pp. 362-381 CrossRef
  11. Do?en K (1993) A historical introduction to substructural logics. In: Schroeder-Heister P, Do?en K (eds) Substructural logics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1-0
  12. Dunn JM (1993) Partial gaggles applied to logics with restricted structural rules. In: Schroeder-Heister P, Do?en K (eds) Substructural logics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 63-08
  13. Field, H (2008) Saving truth from paradox. Oxford University Press, Oxford CrossRef
  14. Geach, PT (1955) On Insolubilia. Analysis 15: pp. 71-72 CrossRef
  15. Gentzen G (1935) Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen. Mathematische Zeitschrift 39:176-10, 405-31. Translated by M. E. Szabo in Gentzen G (1969) Collected Papers. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 68-31
  16. Girard, JY (1987) Linear logic. Theoret Comput Sci 50: pp. 1-102 CrossRef
  17. Hájek, P, Paris, J, Shepherdson, J (2000) The liar paradox and fuzzy logic. J Symb Log 65: pp. 339-346 CrossRef
  18. Ketland, J (2012) Validity as a primitive. Analysis 72: pp. 421-430 CrossRef
  19. Mares E, Paoli F (2013) Logical consequence and the paradoxes. J Philos Log. doi:10.1007/s10992-013-9268-4
  20. Martin, E, Meyer, R (1982) Solution to the P-W problem. J Symb Log 47: pp. 869-887 CrossRef
  21. Meyer, RK, Routley, R, Dunn, JM (1979) Curry’s paradox. Analysis 39: pp. 124-128 CrossRef
  22. Murzi J, Shapiro L (forthcoming) Validity and truth-preservation. In: Achourioti D, Fujimoto K, Galinon H, Martínez-Fernández J (eds) Unifying the philosophy of truth. Springer, Dordrecht
  23. Paoli, F (2002) Substructural logics: a primer. Kluwer, Dordrecht CrossRef
  24. Priest, G (1980) Sense, entailment, and modus ponens. J Philos Log 9: pp. 415-435 CrossRef
  25. Priest G (2006) In contradiction. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Expanded edition (first published 1987)
  26. Priest G (2014) Fusion and confusion. This issue of / Topoi
  27. Read, S (1979) Self-reference and validity. Synthese 42: pp. 265-274 CrossRef
  28. Read, S (1988) Relevant logic: a philosophical examination of inference. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
  29. Restall G (
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Philosophy
  Philosophy
  Philosophy of Science
  Philosophy of Technology
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1572-8749

文摘

Rejecting structural contraction has been proposed as a strategy for escaping semantic paradoxes. The challenge for its advocates has been to make intuitive sense of how contraction might fail. I offer a way of doing so, based on a “naive-interpretation of the relation between structure and logical vocabulary in a sequent proof system. The naive interpretation of structure motivates the most common way of blaming Curry-style paradoxes on illicit contraction. By contrast, the naive interpretation will not as easily motivate one recent noncontractive approach to the Liar paradox.