Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Revision Without Revision Sequences: Self-Referential Truth.Edoardo Rivello - 2019 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 48 (3):523-551.
    The model of self-referential truth presented in this paper, named Revision-theoretic supervaluation, aims to incorporate the philosophical insights of Gupta and Belnap’s Revision Theory of Truth into the formal framework of Kripkean fixed-point semantics. In Kripke-style theories the final set of grounded true sentences can be reached from below along a strictly increasing sequence of sets of grounded true sentences: in this sense, each stage of the construction can be viewed as an improvement on the previous ones. I want to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • A theory of truth based on a medieval solution to the liar paradox.Richard L. Epstein - 1992 - History and Philosophy of Logic 13 (2):149-177.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Periodicity and Reflexivity in Revision Sequences.Edoardo Rivello - 2015 - Studia Logica 103 (6):1279-1302.
    Revision sequences were introduced in 1982 by Herzberger and Gupta as a mathematical tool in formalising their respective theories of truth. Since then, revision has developed in a method of analysis of theoretical concepts with several applications in other areas of logic and philosophy. Revision sequences are usually formalised as ordinal-length sequences of objects of some sort. A common idea of revision process is shared by all revision theories but specific proposals can differ in the so-called limit rule, namely the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Liar and Theories of Truth.John Hawthorn - 1983 - Dissertation, Mcgill University (Canada)
    I first discuss Chihara's claim that the presence of Liar-paradoxical sentences presents no problem for our understanding of natural languages, and argue that this cannot be held as easily as he suggests. I then consider the theories advanced by Martin, van Fraassen, Kripke and Burge which attempt to meet some of the problems involved. I argue that the claim in the first two theories that Liar sentences are ill-formed cannot be maintained, and that Burge's theory is methodologically unsound and seriously (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation