The Structural Collapse Approach Reconsidered

En este trabajo argumentaré que la reformulación que roy Cook (forthcoming) hacede la paradoja de yablo en el sistema infinitario D es una genuina paradoja no circular,pero por motivos distintos a los defendidos por ese autor. la primera parte del trabajoconsiste en mostrar que la ausencia de puntos fijos en la construcción es insuficientepara demostrar su no circularidad, a lo sumo prueba su no autorreferencialidad. lasegunda parte consiste en volver a considerar el enfoque del colapso estructuralqueCook rechaza, y argumentar que una correcta comprensión del mismo revela que laparadoja es genuinamente no circular.I will argue that Roy Cook’s (2013) reformulation of Yablo’s Paradox in the infinitary system D is a genuinely non-circular paradox, but for different reasons than the ones he sustained. In fact, the first part of the job will be to show that his argument regarding the absence of fixed points in the construction is insufficient to prove the non-circularity of it; at much it proves its non-self referentiality. The second is to reconsider the structural collapse approach Cook rejects, and argue that a correct understanding of it leads us to the claim that the infinitary paradox is actually non-circular.Fil: Ojea Quintana, Ignacio María. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Instituto de Filosofía "Dr. Alejandro Korn"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

Axioms for grounded truth

We axiomatize Leitgeb’s (2005) theory of truth and show that this theory proves all arithmetical sentences of the system of ramified analysis up to ε0. We also give alternative axiomatizations of Kripke’s (1975) theory of truth (Strong Kleene and supervaluational version) and show that they are at least as strong as the Kripke-Feferman system KF and Cantini’s VF, respectively

The Structural Collapse Approach Reconsidered

I will argue that Roy Cook’s (forthcoming) reformulation of Yablo’s Paradox in the infinitary system D is a genuinely non-circular paradox, but for different reasons than the ones he sustained. In fact, the first part of the job will be to show that his argument regarding the absence of fixed points in the construction is insufficient to prove the noncircularity of it; at much it proves its non-self referentiality. The second is to reconsider the structural collapse approach Cook rejects, and argue that a correct understanding of it leads us to the claim that the infinitary paradox is actually non-circularEn este trabajo argumentaré que la reformulación que Roy Cook (forthcoming) hace de la paradoja de yablo en el sistema infinitario D es una genuina paradoja no circular, pero por motivos distintos a los defendidos por ese autor. La primera parte del trabajo consiste en mostrar que la ausencia de puntos fijos en la construcción es insuficiente para demostrar su no circularidad, a lo sumo prueba su no autorreferencialidad. La segunda parte consiste en volver a considerar el enfoque del colapso estructural que Cook rechaza, y argumentar que una correcta comprensión del mismo revela que la paradoja es genuinamente no circular

How to Conquer the Liar and Enthrone the Logical Concept of Truth: an Informal Exposition

This article informally presents a solution to the paradoxes of truth and shows how the solution solves classical paradoxes (such as the original Liar) as well as the paradoxes that were invented as counterarguments for various proposed solutions (“the revenge of the Liar”). This solution complements the classical procedure of determining the truth values of sentences by its own failure and, when the procedure fails, through an appropriate semantic shift allows us to express the failure in a classical two-valued language. Formally speaking, the solution is a language with one meaning of symbols and two valuations of the truth values of sentences. The primary valuation is a classical valuation that is partial in the presence of the truth predicate. It enables us to determine the classical truth value of a sentence or leads to the failure of that determination. The language with the primary valuation is precisely the largest intrinsic fixed point of the strong Kleene three-valued semantics (LIFPSK3). The semantic shift that allows us to express the failure of the primary valuation is precisely the classical closure of LIFPSK3: it extends LIFPSK3 to a classical language in parts where LIFPSK3 is undetermined. Thus, this article provides an argumentation, which has not been present in contemporary debates so far, for the choice of LIFPSK3 and its classical closure as the right model for the truth predicate. In the end, an erroneous critique of Kripke-Feferman axiomatic theory of truth, which is present in contemporary literature, is pointed out

Dangerous Reference Graphs and Semantic Paradoxes

The semantic paradoxes are often associated with self-reference or referential circularity. Yablo (Analysis 53(4):251-252, 1993), however, has shown that there are infinitary versions of the paradoxes that do not involve this form of circularity. It rema

Fixed-point models for paradoxical predicates

This paper introduces a new kind of fixed-point semantics, filling a gap within approaches to Liar-like paradoxes involving fixed-point models à la Kripke (1975). The four-valued models presented below, (i) unlike the three-valued, consistent fixed-point models defined in Kripke (1975), are able to differentiate between paradoxical and pathological-but-unparadoxical sentences, and (ii) unlike the four-valued, paraconsistent fixed-point models first studied in Visser (1984) and Woodruff (1984), preserve consistency and groundedness of truth. Keywords:  Semantic Paradoxes · Fixed-point semantics · Many-valued logic · Kripke’s theory oftrut

Fixed-point models for paradoxical predicates

This paper introduces a new kind of fixed-point semantics, filling a gap within approaches to Liar-like paradoxes involving fixed-point models à la Kripke (1975). The four-valued models presented below, (i) unlike the three-valued, consistent fixed-point models defined in Kripke (1975), are able to differentiate between paradoxical and pathological-but-unparadoxical sentences, and (ii) unlike the four-valued, paraconsistent fixed-point models first studied in Visser (1984) and Woodruff (1984), preserve consistency and groundedness of truth. Keywords:  Semantic Paradoxes · Fixed-point semantics · Many-valued logic · Kripke’s theory oftrut