Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Lies, lies, and more lies: A plea for propositions.Jordan Howard Sobel - 1992 - Philosophical Studies 67 (1):51-69.
    To resolve putative liar paradoxes it is sufficient to attend to the distinction between liar-sentences and the propositions they would express, and to exercise the option of turning would-be deductions of paradox (of contradictions) into reductions of the existence of those propositions. Defending the coherence of particular resolutions along these lines, leads to recognition of the non-extensionality of some liar-sentences. In particular, it turns out that exchanges of terms for identicals in the open-sentence '- does not expression a true proposition' (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Syntactical Treatments of Modality, with Corollaries on Reflexion Principles and Finite Axiomatizability.Richard Montague - 1963 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 40 (4):600-601.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   82 citations  
  • A paradox regained.D. Kaplan & R. Montague - 1960 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 1 (3):79-90.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   102 citations  
  • The liar paradox.Charles Parsons - 1974 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 3 (4):381 - 412.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   119 citations  
  • On representing ‘true-in-L’ in L.Robert L. Martin - 1975 - Philosophia 5 (3):213-217.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   72 citations  
  • Outline of a theory of truth.Saul Kripke - 1975 - Journal of Philosophy 72 (19):690-716.
    A formal theory of truth, alternative to tarski's 'orthodox' theory, based on truth-value gaps, is presented. the theory is proposed as a fairly plausible model for natural language and as one which allows rigorous definitions to be given for various intuitive concepts, such as those of 'grounded' and 'paradoxical' sentences.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   882 citations  
  • Mathematical Logic as Based on the Theory of Types.Bertrand Russell, Irving M. Copi & James A. Gould - 1974 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 39 (2):356-356.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • The Complexity of Revision.Gian Aldo Antonelli - 1994 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 35 (1):67-72.
    In this paper we show that the Gupta-Belnap systems S# and S* are П12. Since Kremer has independently established that they are П12-hard, this completely settles the problem of their complexity. The above-mentioned upper bound is established through a reduction to countable revision sequences that is inspired by, and makes use of a construction of McGee.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • The Gupta-Belnap systems ${\rm S}^\#$ and ${\rm S}^*$ are not axiomatisable.Philip Kremer - 1993 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 34 (4):583-596.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Semantical paradox.Tyler Burge - 1979 - Journal of Philosophy 76 (4):169-198.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   137 citations  
  • The diagonal argument and the liar.Keith Simmons - 1990 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 19 (3):277 - 303.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • The Semantic Paradoxes: A Diagnostic Investigation.Charles Chihara & Tyler Burge - 1984 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 49 (3):995-996.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The semantic paradoxes: A diagnostic investigation.Charles Chihara - 1979 - Philosophical Review 88 (4):590-618.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   88 citations  
  • Epistemic paradox.Tyler Burge - 1984 - Journal of Philosophy 81 (1):5-29.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • The Guptα-Belnαp Systems S and S* are not Axiomatisable.Philip Kremer - 1993 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 34 (4):583-596.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations