Equiparadoxicality of Yablo’s Paradox and the Liar


Authors
Ming Hsiung
Zhongshan University
Abstract
It is proved that Yablo’s paradox and the Liar paradox are equiparadoxical, in the sense that their paradoxicality is based upon exactly the same circularity condition—for any frame ${\mathcal{K}}$ , the following are equivalent: (1) Yablo’s sequence leads to a paradox in ${\mathcal{K}}$ ; (2) the Liar sentence leads to a paradox in ${\mathcal{K}}$ ; (3) ${\mathcal{K}}$ contains odd cycles. This result does not conflict with Yablo’s claim that his sequence is non-self-referential. Rather, it gives Yablo’s paradox a new significance: his construction contributes a method by which we can eliminate the self-reference of a paradox without changing its circularity condition
Keywords Circularity  Equiparadoxical  Liar paradox  T-schema  Yablo’s paradox
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10849-012-9166-0
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,206
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Paradox Without Self-Reference.Stephen Yablo - 1993 - Analysis 53 (4):251.
What Truth Depends On.Hannes Leitgeb - 2005 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (2):155-192.
Yablo’s Paradox.Graham Priest - 1997 - Analysis 57 (4):236–242.
Patterns of Paradox.Roy T. Cook - 2004 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 69 (3):767-774.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Guest Editors’ Introduction.Riccardo Bruni & Shawn Standefer - 2019 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 48 (1):1-9.
What Paradoxes Depend On.Ming Hsiung - 2018 - Synthese:1-27.
Boolean Paradoxes and Revision Periods.Ming Hsiung - 2017 - Studia Logica 105 (5):881-914.
Tarski's Theorem and Liar-Like Paradoxes.Ming Hsiung - 2014 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 22 (1):24-38.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Yablo's Paradox and Referring to Infinite Objects.O. Bueno & M. Colyvan - 2003 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (3):402 – 412.
Gödelizing the Yablo Sequence.Cezary Cieśliński & Rafal Urbaniak - 2013 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (5):679-695.
Denying The Liar.Dale Jacquette - 2007 - Polish Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):91-98.
The Liar Paradox in New Clothes.Jeff Snapper - 2012 - Analysis 72 (2):319-322.
Liar Paradox.Bradley Dowden - 2001 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Is Yablo's Paradox Liar-Like?James Hardy - 1995 - Analysis 55 (3):197 - 198.
Bueno and Colyvan on Yablo’s Paradox.Jeffrey Ketland - 2004 - Analysis 64 (2):165–172.
Aristotle on the Liar.Paolo Crivelli - 2004 - Topoi 23 (1):61-70.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-10-05

Total views
65 ( #134,681 of 2,285,631 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #79,784 of 2,285,631 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature