Paradox and inconsistency: revising Tennant's distinction through Schroeder-Heister's assumption rules

DOI10.1007/978-3-319-10434-8_7MaRDI QIDQ5213629zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Luca Tranchini

Publication date 4 February 2020

Published in Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10434-8_7

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations (03A05) Proof theory in general (including proof-theoretic semantics) (03F03)

Recommendations

• A normal paradox
• On paradoxes in normal form
• Natural deduction and Curry's paradox
• Ekman's paradox
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 6389756

Cites work

• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3813515 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1406467 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3275554 (Why is no real title available?)
• A natural extension of natural deduction
• Ekman's paradox
• General-elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants
• Implications-as-rules vs. implications-as-links: an alternative implication-left schema for the sequent calculus
• Outline of a Theory of Truth
• Proof and Paradox
• Proof-theoretic semantics, paradoxes and the distinction between sense and denotation
• Proof-theoretic semantics, self-contradiction, and the format of deductive reasoning
• Propositions in Prepositional Logic Provable Only by Indirect Proofs

Cited in

(2)

• On paradoxes in normal form
• A normal paradox

This page was built for publication: Paradox and inconsistency: revising Tennant's distinction through Schroeder-Heister's assumption rules

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q5213629)