Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:14:00.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON ZARDINI’S RULES FOR MULTIPLICATIVE QUANTIFICATION AS THE SOURCE OF CONTRA(DI)CTIONS

Part of: Proof theory and constructive mathematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2022

UWE PETERSEN
UWE PETERSEN*
Affiliation:
ALTONAER STIFTUNG FÜR PHILOSOPHISCHE GRUNDLAGENFORSCHUNG (ASFPG) HAMBURG, GERMANY
*
E-mail: uwe.petersen@asfpg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Certain instances of contraction are provable in Zardini’s system $\mathbf {IK}^\omega $ which causes triviality once a truth predicate and suitable fixed points are available.

Keywords

cut eliminationcontractionparadox

MSC classification

Primary: 03F52: Linear logic and other substructural logics
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2023 , pp. 1110 - 1119
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Symbolic Logic

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bacon, A. (2013). Curry’s paradox and $\omega $ -inconsistency. Studia Logica, 101(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Da Ré, B. & Rosenblatt, L. (2018). Contraction, infinitary quantifiers, and omega paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47(4), 611–629.Google Scholar
Fjellstad, A. (2018). Infinitary contraction-free revenge. Thought, 7(3), 179–189.Google Scholar
Fjellstad, A. (2020). A note on the cut-elimination proof in “truth without contra(di)ction”. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 13(4), 882–886.Google Scholar
Fjellstad, A. & Olsen, J.-F. (2021). IKT ω and Łukasiewicz-models. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 62(2), 882–886.Google Scholar
Petersen, U. (2000). Logic without contraction as based on inclusion and unrestricted abstraction. Studia Logica, 64, 365–403.Google Scholar
Petersen, U. (2002). Diagonal Method and Dialectical Logic. Tools, Materials, and Groundworks for a Logical Foundation of Dialectic and Speculative Philosophy. Osnabrück: Der Andere. Available at https://www.academia.edu.Google Scholar
Schütte, K. (1977). Proof Theory. Berlin–Heidelberg–New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Shaw-Kwei, M. (1954). Logical paradoxes for many-valued systems. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 19, 37–40.Google Scholar
Takeuti, G. (1987). Proof Theory (second edition). Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 81. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Zardini, E. (2011). Truth without contra(di)ction. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(4), 498–535.Google Scholar