Skip to main content
Log in

Real Analysis in Paraconsistent Logic

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper begins an analysis of the real line using an inconsistency-tolerant (paraconsistent) logic. We show that basic field and compactness properties hold, by way of novel proofs that make no use of consistency-reliant inferences; some techniques from constructive analysis are used instead. While no inconsistencies are found in the algebraic operations on the real number field, prospects for other non-trivializing contradictions are left open.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Batens, D., Mortensen, C., Priest, G., & van Bendegem, J.-P. (Eds.) (2000). Frontiers of paraconsistent logic. Philadelphia: Research Studies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beall, J., & Murzi, J. (2011). Two flavors of curry paradox. Under review; see http://homepages.uconn.edu/~jcb02005/.

  3. Brady, R. (Ed.) (2003). Relevant logics and their rivals, volume II: A continuation of the work of Richard Sylvan, Robert Meyer, Val Plumwood and Ross Brady. Ashgate. With contributions by: Martin Bunder, Andre Fuhrmann, Andrea Loparic, Edwin Mares, Chris Mortensen, and Alasdair Urquhart.

  4. Brady, R. (2006). Universal logic. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brady, R. T. (1989). The non-triviality of dialectical set theory. In G. Priest, R. Routley, & J. Norman (Eds.), Paraconsistent logic: Essays on the inconsistent (pp. 437–470). Munich: Philosophia Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bridges, D., & Richman, F. (1987). Varieties of constructive mathematics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, B., & Priest, G. (2004). Chunk and permeate i: The infinitesimal calculus. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33, 379–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brunner, A. B., & Carnielli, W. A. (2005). Anti-intuitionism and paraconsistency. Journal of Applied Logic, 3, 161–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Butchart, S. (2008). Binary quantifiers for relevant paraconsistent logic. Presented at the Australasian Association for Philosophy Conference, Melbourne (to appear).

  10. da Costa, N. (2000). Paraconsistent mathematics. In D. Batens, C. Mortensen, G. Priest, & J.-P. van Bendegem (Eds.), Frontiers of paraconsistent logic (pp. 165–180). Philadelphia: Research Studies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. da Costa, N. C. A. (1974). On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15, 497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Field, H. (2008). Saving truth fromcontradiction. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Goodman, N. D. (1981). The logic of contradiction. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 27(8–10), 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis, C., & Langford, C. (1959). Symbolic logic. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mares, E. (2004). Relevant logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Meyer, R. K., Routley, R., & Dunn, J. M. (1978). Curry’s paradox. Analysis, 39, 124–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mortensen, C. (1990). Models for inconsistent and incomplete differential calculus. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 31(2), 274–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mortensen, C. (1995). Inconsistent mathematics. Dordrecht, New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mortensen, C. (2000). Prospects for inconsistency. In D. Batens, C. Mortensen, G. Priest, & J.-P. van Bendegem (Eds.), Frontiers of paraconsistent logic (pp. 203–208). Philadelphia: Research Studies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mortensen, C. (2009). Inconsistent mathematics: Some philosophical implications. In A. Irvine (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science volume 9: Philosophy of mathematics. North Holland: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Priest, G. (2006). In contradiction: A study of the transconsistent (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Priest, G. (2008). An introduction to non-classical logic (2nd ed.). Cambridge.

  23. Priest, G., Routley, R., & Norman, J. (Eds.) (1989). Paraconsistent logic: Essays on the inconsistent. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Routley, R. (1977). Ultralogic as universal? Relevance Logic Newsletter, 2, 51–89. Reprinted in R. Routley. Exploring Meinong’s Jungle and Beyond. Philosophy Department, RSSS, Australian National University, Canberra, 1980. Departmental Monograph number 3.

  25. Routley, R., Plumwood, V., Meyer, R. K., & Brady, R. T. (1982). Relevant logics and their rivals. Ridgeview.

  26. Weber, Z. (2010). Transfinite numbers in paraconsistent set theory. Review of Symbolic Logic, 3(1), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zach Weber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McKubre-Jordens, M., Weber, Z. Real Analysis in Paraconsistent Logic. J Philos Logic 41, 901–922 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9210-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9210-6

Keywords

Navigation