This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.

Russell's Paradox

Related categories
Siblings:
33 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Andrew Bacon (forthcoming). Curry's Paradox and Omega Inconsistency. Studia Logica.
    In recent years there has been a revitalised interest in non-classical solutions to the semantic paradoxes. In this paper I show that a number of logics are susceptible to a strengthened version of Curry's paradox. This can be adapted to provide a proof theoretic analysis of the omega-inconsistency in Lukasiewicz's continuum valued logic, allowing us to better evaluate which logics are suitable for a naïve truth theory. On this basis I identify two natural subsystems of Lukasiewicz logic which individually, but (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: users.ox.ac.uk   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  2. Andrew Boucher, A Comprehensive Solution to the Paradoxes.
    A solution to the paradoxes has two sides: the philosophical and the technical. The paradoxes are, first and foremost, a philosophical problem. A philosophical solution must pinpoint the exact step where the reasoning that leads to contradiction is fallacious, and then explain why it is so.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More options ...
  3. Hector-Neri Castañeda (1976). Ontology and Grammar: I. Russell's Paradox and the General Theory of Properties in Natural Language. Theoria 42 (1-3):44-92.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  4. Nino B. Cocchiarella (2000). Russell's Paradox of the Totality of Propositions. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (1):25-37.
    Russell's "new contradiction" about "the totality of propositions" has been connected with a number of modal paradoxes. M. Oksanen has recently shown how these modal paradoxes are resolved in the set theory NFU. Russell's paradox of the totality of propositions was left unexplained, however. We reconstruct Russell's argument and explain how it is resolved in two intensional logics that are equiconsistent with NFU. We also show how different notions of possible worlds are represented in these intensional logics.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: tandfonline.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  5. J. N. Crossley (1973). A Note on Cantor's Theorem and Russell's Paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 51 (1):70 – 71.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: informaworld.com tandfonline.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  6. Arnold Cusmariu (1979). Russell's Paradox Re-Examined. Erkenntnis 14 (3):365-370.
    I attempt to rescue Frege's naive conception of a set according to which there is a set for every property by redefining the technical concept of degree of an open sentence. Instead of making degree a function of the number of free variables, I make it a function of free variable occurrences. What Russell proved, then, is that there is not a relation-in-extension for every relation-in-intension. In a brief paper it is not possible to discuss how redefining the function-argument correlation (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  7. Fernando Ferreira & Kai F. Wehmeier (2002). On the Consistency of the Δ11-CA Fragment of Frege's Grundgesetze. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (4):301-311.
    It is well known that Frege's system in the Grundgesetze der Arithmetik is formally inconsistent. Frege's instantiation rule for the second-order universal quantifier makes his system, except for minor differences, full (i.e., with unrestricted comprehension) second-order logic, augmented by an abstraction operator that abides to Frege's basic law V. A few years ago, Richard Heck proved the consistency of the fragment of Frege's theory obtained by restricting the comprehension schema to predicative formulae. He further conjectured that the more encompassing 1 (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  8. Harvey M. Friedman, From Russell's Paradox To.
    Russell’s way out of his paradox via the impredicative theory of types has roughly the same logical power as Zermelo set theory - which supplanted it as a far more flexible and workable axiomatic foundation for mathematics. We discuss some new formalisms that are conceptually close to Russell, yet simpler, and have the same logical power as higher set theory - as represented by the far more powerful Zermelo-Frankel set theory and beyond. END.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: math.osu.edu   | Scholar | More options ...
  9. Michael Glanzberg (2003). Minimalism and Paradoxes. Synthese 135 (1):13 - 36.
    This paper argues against minimalism about truth. It does so by way of acomparison of the theory of truth with the theory of sets, and considerationof where paradoxes may arise in each. The paper proceeds by asking twoseemingly unrelated questions. First, what is the theory of truth about?Answering this question shows that minimalism bears important similaritiesto naive set theory. Second, why is there no strengthened version ofRussell's paradox, as there is a strengthened Liar paradox? Answering thisquestion shows that like naive (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  10. Laurence Goldstein (2004). The Barber, Russell's Paradox, Catch-22, God, Contradiction and More: A Defence of a Wittgensteinian Conception of Contradiction. In Graham Priest, JC Beall & Bradley Armour-Garb (eds.), The law of non-contradiction: new philosophical essays. Oxford University Press.
    outrageous remarks about contradictions. Perhaps the most striking remark he makes is that they are not false. This claim first appears in his early notebooks (Wittgenstein 1960, p.108). In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein argued that contradictions (like tautologies) are not statements (Sätze) and hence are not false (or true). This is a consequence of his theory that genuine statements are pictures.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  11. Reinhardt Grossmann (1972). Russell's Paradox and Complex Properties. Noûs 6 (2):153-164.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  12. F. Graf Hoensbroech (1939). On Russell's Paradox. Mind 48 (191):355-358.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: mind.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  13. Kelly Dean Jolley (2004). Logic's Caretaker–Wittgenstein, Logic, and the Vanishment of Russell's Paradox. Philosophical Forum 35 (3):281–309.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: interscience.wiley.com blackwell-synergy.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  14. Kevin C. Klement, Russell's Paradox. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Russell's paradox represents either of two interrelated logical antinomies. The most commonly discussed form is a contradiction arising in the logic of sets or classes. Some classes (or sets) seem to be members of themselves, while some do not. The class of all classes is itself a class, and so it seems to be in itself. The null or empty class, however, must not be a member of itself. However, suppose that we can form a class of all classes (or (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  15. Kevin C. Klement (2001). Russell's Paradox in Appendix B of the Principles of Mathematics : Was Frege's Response Adequate? History and Philosophy of Logic 22 (1):13-28.
    In their correspondence in 1902 and 1903, after discussing the Russell paradox, Russell and Frege discussed the paradox of propositions considered informally in Appendix B of Russell’s Principles of Mathematics. It seems that the proposition, p, stating the logical product of the class w, namely, the class of all propositions stating the logical product of a class they are not in, is in w if and only if it is not. Frege believed that this paradox was avoided within his philosophy (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: informaworld.com scholarworks.umass.edu tandfonline.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  16. William C. Kneale (1971). Russell's Paradox and Some Others. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22 (4):321-338.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  17. James Levine (2001). On Russell's Vulnerability to Russell's Paradox. History and Philosophy of Logic 22 (4):207-231.
    Influenced by G. E. Moore, Russell broke with Idealism towards the end of 1898; but in later years he characterized his meeting Peano in August 1900 as ?the most important event? in ?the most important year in my intellectual life?. While Russell discovered his paradox during his post-Peano period, the question arises whether he was already committed, during his pre-Peano Moorean period, to assumptions from which his paradox may be derived. Peter Hylton has argued that the pre-Peano Russell was thus (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: tandfonline.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  18. Godehard Link (2004). One Hundred Years of Russell's Paradox: Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy. Walter De Gruyter.
    The papers collected in this volume represent the main body of research arising from the International Munich Centenary Conference in 2001, which commemorated ...
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  19. Bernard Linsky (2002). The Resolution of Russell's Paradox in "Principia Mathematica". Noûs 36 (s16):395 - 417.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  20. Francis Moorcroft (1993). Why Russell's Paradox Won't Go Away. Philosophy 68 (263):99 - 103.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  21. James Moulder (1974). Is Russell's Paradox Genuine? Philosophy 49 (189):295 - 302.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  22. Francesco Orilia (1996). A Contingent Russell's Paradox. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37 (1):105-111.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  23. Francesco Orilia (1991). Type-Free Property Theory, Exemplification and Russell's Paradox. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 32 (3):432-447.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  24. Andrew M. Pitts & Paul Taylor (1989). A Note on Russell's Paradox in Locally Cartesian Closed Categories. Studia Logica 48 (3):377 - 387.
    Working in the fragment of Martin-Löfs extensional type theory [12] which has products (but not sums) of dependent types, we consider two additional assumptions: firstly, that there are (strong) equality types; and secondly, that there is a type which is universal in the sense that terms of that type name all types, up to isomorphism. For such a type theory, we give a version of Russell's paradox showing that each type possesses a closed term and (hence) that all terms of (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  25. Michael D. Potter (2004). Set Theory and its Philosophy: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press.
    Michael Potter presents a comprehensive new philosophical introduction to set theory. Anyone wishing to work on the logical foundations of mathematics must understand set theory, which lies at its heart. Potter offers a thorough account of cardinal and ordinal arithmetic, and the various axiom candidates. He discusses in detail the project of set-theoretic reduction, which aims to interpret the rest of mathematics in terms of set theory. The key question here is how to deal with the paradoxes that bedevil set (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  26. K. Simmons (2000). Sets, Classes and Extensions: A Singularity Approach to Russell's Paradox. Philosophical Studies 100 (2):109-149.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  27. Hartley Slater (2006). Frege's Hidden Assumption (El Supuesto Escondido de Frege). Crítica 38 (113):27 - 37.
    This paper is concerned with locating the specific assumption that led Frege into Russell's Paradox. His understanding of reflexive pronouns was weak, for one thing, but also, by assimilating concepts to functions he was misled into thinking one could invariably replace a two-place relation with a one-place property. /// Este trabajo se ocupa de localizar el supuesto específico que llevó a Frege a la Paradoja de Russell. Por una parte, su comprensión de los pronombres reflexivos era débil pero, por otra, (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  28. Graham Stevens (2004). From Russell's Paradox to the Theory of Judgement: Wittgenstein and Russell on the Unity of the Proposition. Theoria 70 (1):28-61.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  29. Rafal Urbaniak (2008). Lesniewski and Russell's Paradox: Some Problems. History and Philosophy of Logic 29 (2):115-146.
    Sobocinski in his paper on Leśniewski's solution to Russell's paradox (1949b) argued that Leśniewski has succeeded in explaining it away. The general strategy of this alleged explanation is presented. The key element of this attempt is the distinction between the collective (mereological) and the distributive (set-theoretic) understanding of the set. The mereological part of the solution, although correct, is likely to fall short of providing foundations of mathematics. I argue that the remaining part of the solution which suggests a specific (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: informaworld.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  30. Christopher Viger (2002). St. Anselm's Ontological Argument Succumbs to Russell's Paradox. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52 (3):123-128.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  31. Zach Weber (2010). Explanation And Solution In The Inclosure Argument. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (2):353-357.
    In a recent article, Emil Badici contends that the inclosure schema substantially fails as an analysis of the paradoxes of self-reference because it is question-begging. The main purpose of this note is to show that Badici's critique highlights a necessity condition for the success of dialectic about paradoxes. The inclosure argument respects this condition and remains solvent.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: informaworld.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  32. Kai F. Wehmeier (2004). Russell's Paradox in Consistent Fragments of Frege's Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. In Godehard Link (ed.), One Hundred Years of Russell’s Paradox. de Gruyter.
    We provide an overview of consistent fragments of the theory of Frege’s Grundgesetze der Arithmetik that arise by restricting the second-order comprehension schema. We discuss how such theories avoid inconsistency and show how the reasoning underlying Russell’s paradox can be put to use in an investigation of these fragments.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  33. Kai F. Wehmeier (1999). Consistent Fragments of Grundgesetze and the Existence of Non-Logical Objects. Synthese 121 (3):309-328.
    In this paper, I consider two curious subsystems ofFrege's Grundgesetze der Arithmetik: Richard Heck's predicative fragment H, consisting of schema V together with predicative second-order comprehension (in a language containing a syntactical abstraction operator), and a theory T in monadic second-order logic, consisting of axiom V and 1 1-comprehension (in a language containing anabstraction function). I provide a consistency proof for the latter theory, thereby refuting a version of a conjecture by Heck. It is shown that both Heck and T (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...