The unwinding that Cook, 767–774 2004) proposed is a simple but powerful method of generating new paradoxes from known ones. This paper extends Cook’s unwinding to a larger class of paradoxes and studies further the basic properties of the unwinding. The unwinding we study is a procedure, by which when inputting a Boolean modal net together with a definable digraph, we get a set of sentences in which we have a ‘counterpart’ for each sentence of the Boolean modal net and (...) each point of the digraph. What is more, whenever a sentence of the Boolean modal net says another sentence is necessary, then the counterpart of the first sentence at a point correspondingly says the counterparts of the second one at all accessible points of that point are all true. The output of the procedure is called ‘the unwinding of a Boolean modal net on a definable digraph’. We prove that the unwinding procedure preserves paradoxicality: a Boolean modal net is paradoxical on a definable digraph, iff the unwinding of it on this digraph is also paradoxical. Besides, the dependence digraph for the unwinding of a Boolean modal net on a definable digraph is proved to be isomorphic to the unwinding of the dependence digraph for the Boolean modal net on the previous definable digraph. So the unwinding of a Boolean modal net on a digraph is self-referential, iff the Boolean modal net is self-referential and the digraph is cyclic. Thus, on the one hand, the unwinding of any Boolean modal net on an acyclic digraph is non-self-referential. In particular, the unwinding of any Boolean modal net on \ is non-self-referential. On the other hand, if a Boolean modal net is paradoxical on a locally finite digraph, the unwinding of it on that digraph must be self-referential. Hence, starting from a Boolean modal paradox, the unwinding can output a non-self-referential paradox only if the digraph is not locally finite. (shrink)

This paper gives a definition of self-reference on the basis of the dependence relation given by Leitgeb (J Philos Logic 34(2):155–192, 2005), and the dependence digraph by Beringer and Schindler (Reference graphs and semantic paradox, 2015. https://www.academia.edu/19234872/reference_graphs_and_semantic_paradox). Unlike the usual discussion about self-reference of paradoxes centering around Yablo’s paradox and its variants, I focus on the paradoxes of finitary characteristic, which are given again by use of Leitgeb’s dependence relation. They are called ‘locally finite paradoxes’, satisfying that any sentence in (...) these paradoxes can depend on finitely many sentences. I prove that all locally finite paradoxes are self-referential in the sense that there is a directed cycle in their dependence digraphs. This paper also studies the ‘circularity dependence’ of paradoxes, which was introduced by Hsiung (Logic J IGPL 22(1):24–38, 2014). I prove that the locally finite paradoxes have circularity dependence in the sense that they are paradoxical only in the digraph containing a proper cycle. The proofs of the two results are based directly on König’s infinity lemma. In contrast, this paper also shows that Yablo’s paradox and its ∀∃\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\forall \exists $$\end{document}-unwinding variant are non-self-referential, and neither McGee’s paradox nor the ω\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\omega $$\end{document}-cycle liar has circularity dependence. (shrink)

We can classify the (truth-theoretic) paradoxes according to their degrees of paradoxicality. Roughly speaking, two paradoxes have the same degrees of paradoxicality, if they lead to a contradiction under the same conditions, and one paradox has a (non-strictly) lower degree of paradoxicality than another, if whenever the former leads to a contradiction under a condition, the latter does so under the same condition. In this paper, we outline some results and questions around the degrees of paradoxicality and summarize recent progress.

This paper gives a definition of self-reference on the basis of the dependence relation given by Leitgeb (2005), and the dependence digraph by Beringer & Schindler (2015). Unlike the usual discussion about self-reference of paradoxes centering around Yablo's paradox and its variants, I focus on the paradoxes of finitary characteristic, which are given again by use of Leitgeb's dependence relation. They are called 'locally finite paradoxes', satisfying that any sentence in these paradoxes can depend on finitely many sentences. I prove (...) that all locally finite paradoxes are self-referential in the sense that there is a directed cycle in their dependence digraphs. This paper also studies the 'circularity dependence' of paradoxes, which was introduced by Hsiung (2014). I prove that the locally finite paradoxes have circularity dependence in the sense that they are paradoxical only in the digraph containing a proper cycle. The proofs of the two results are based directly on König's infinity lemma. In contrast, this paper also shows that Yablo's paradox and its nested variant are non-self-referential, and neither McGee's paradox nor the omega-cycle liar paradox has circularity dependence. (shrink)

In various theories of truth, people have set forth many definitions to clarify in what sense a set of sentences is paradoxical. But what, exactly, is _a_ paradox per se? It has not yet been realized that there is a gap between ‘being paradoxical’ and ‘being a paradox’. This paper proposes that a paradox is a minimally paradoxical set meeting some closure property. Along this line of thought, we give five tentative definitions based upon the folk notion of paradoxicality implied (...) in Tarski’s undefinability theorem of truth and the dependence relation proposed by Leitgeb (J Philos Log 34(2):155–192, 2005). A definition of ‘being a paradox’ is acceptable if its extension must be sufficiently comprehensive to include all known paradoxes on the one hand, and its standard must also be high enough to exclude those that are evidently not paradoxes on the other hand. It turns out that only the last attempt is acceptable: a set of sentences is a paradox if it is paradoxical and self-dependent, and at the same time, it and any of its paradoxical and self-dependent subsets bisimulate each other. In this way, we articulate in what sense a set of sentences is a paradox, and so establish a connection between the notion of a paradox and the notion of paradoxicality. (shrink)

This paper aims to explore the relationship between the necessity predicate and the truth predicate by comparing two possible-world interpretations. The first interpretation, proposed by Halbach et al. (J Philos Log 32(2):179–223, 2003), is for the necessity predicate, and the second, proposed by Hsiung (Stud Log 91(2):239–271, 2009), is for the truth predicate. To achieve this goal, we examine the connections and differences between paradoxical sentences that involve either the necessity predicate or the truth predicate. A primary connection is established (...) through two translations that change only one of the predicates to the other while keeping everything else unchanged. We prove that in bijective frames, a set of sentences that contains one of the two semantic predicates has the same paradoxicality as the corresponding set of sentences that contains the other predicate obtained through translation. However, there are substantial differences as well. First, the necessity predicate and the truth predicate, under the two interpretations, cannot be defined by each other. Moreover, for sentences that involve only the truth predicate, their paradoxicality is preserved under the homomorphisms of frames. For sentences containing the necessity predicate, their paradoxicality is preserved under bounded morphisms, but none of these sentences can have their paradoxicality preserved under the extension of frames. Finally, we also show that paradoxical sentences involving the necessity predicate and those involving the truth predicate differ significantly in terms of mirror symmetry, circularity dependence, and frame compactness. (shrink)

According to the revision theory of truth, the binary sequences generated by the paradoxical sentences in revision sequence are always unstable. In this paper, we work backwards, trying to reconstruct the paradoxical sentences from some of their binary sequences. We give a general procedure of constructing paradoxes with specific binary sequences through some typical examples. Particularly, we construct what Herzberger called “unstable statements with unpredictably complicated variations in truth value.” Besides, we also construct those paradoxes with infinitely many finite primary (...) periods but without any infinite primary period, those with an infinite critical point but without any finite primary period, and so on. This is the first formal appearance of these paradoxes. Our construction demonstrates that the binary sequences generated by a paradoxical sentence are something like genes from which we can even rebuild the original sentence itself. (shrink)

Cook regards Sorenson’s so-called ‘the no-no paradox’ as only a kind of ‘meta-paradox’ or ‘quasi-paradox’ because the symmetry principle that Sorenson imposes on the paradox is meta-theoretic. He rebuilds this paradox at the object-language level by replacing the symmetry principle with some ‘background principles governing the truth predicate’. He thus argues that the no-no paradox is a ‘new type of paradox’ in that its paradoxicality depends on these principles. This paper shows that any theory is inconsistent with the T-schema instances (...) for the no-no sentences, plus the T-schema instance for a Curry sentence associated with the symmetry of the no-no sentences. It turns out that the no-no paradox still depends on the problematic instances of the T-schema in a way that the liar paradox does. What distinguishes the no-no paradox is the T-schema instance for the above Curry sentence, which encodes Sorensen’s symmetry principle at the object-language level. (shrink)