Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Curry’s Paradox and ω -Inconsistency

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years there has been a revitalised interest in non-classical solutions to the semantic paradoxes1. In this paper I show that a number of logics are susceptible to a strengthened version of Curry’s paradox. This can be adapted to provide a proof theoretic analysis of the ω-inconsistency in Łukasiewicz’s continuum valued logic, allowing us to better evaluate which logics are suitable for a naïve truth theory. On this basis I identify two natural subsystems of ukasiewicz logic which individually, but not jointly, lack the problematic feature.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Beall J. (2009) Spandrels of Truthgtr. Oxford University Press, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Brady, R., Universal Logic. CSLI Publications, 2006.

  3. Brady R.T. (1983) The simple consistency of a set theory based on the logic CSQ. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 24(4): 431–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cintula P. (2007) Hájek P, Horcík R., Formal systems of fuzzy logic and their fragments. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 150(1–3): 40–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Field H. (2008) Saving Truth from Paradox. Oxford University Press, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Hájek, P., Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic, Springer, 1998.

  7. Hajek P., Paris J., Shepherdson J. (2000) The liar paradox and fuzzy logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 65(1): 339–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Priest, G., In contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent, Oxford University Press, 2006.

  9. Restall G. (1992) Arithmetic and truth in Lukasiewicz’s infinitely valued logic. Logique et Analyse 140: 303–312

    Google Scholar 

  10. Restall G. (1993) How to be really contraction free. Studia Logica 52(3): 381–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Restall, G., An Introduction to Substructural Logics, Routledge, 2000.

  12. Rogerson S., Butchart S. (2002) Naïve comprehension and contracting implications. Studia Logica 71(1): 119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rogerson S., Restall G. (2004) Routes to triviality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 33(4): 421–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shaw-Kwei M., Logical paradoxes for many-valued systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic 37–40, 1954

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Magdalen College, Oxford, OX1 4AU, UK

    Andrew Bacon

Authors
  1. Andrew Bacon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Bacon.

Additional information

Presented by Jacek Malinowski

1 See, for example, [ 1,2,5].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bacon, A. Curry’s Paradox and ω -Inconsistency. Stud Logica 101, 1–9 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-012-9373-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-012-9373-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation