Abstract
In this note, we review paradoxes like Russell’s, the Liar, and Curry’s in the context of intuitionistic logic. One may observe that one cannot blame the underlying logic for the paradoxes, but has to take into account the particular concept formations. For proof-theoretic semantics, however, this comes with the challenge to block some forms of direct axiomatizations of the Liar. A proper answer to this challenge might be given by Schroeder-Heister’s definitional freedom.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beall, J. C. and J. Murzi (2013). Two flavors of Curry’s paradox. Journal of Philosophy 110, 143–165.
Beeson, M. (1985). Foundations of Constructive Mathematics. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete; 3. Folge, Band 6. Springer.
Behmann, H. (1959). Der Prädikatenkalkül mit limitierten Variablen. Grundlegung einer natürlichen exakten Logik. Journal of Symbolic Logic 24, 112–140.
Bencivenga, E. (2002). Free logics. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Ed. by D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner. Vol. 5. Dordrecht: Springer, 147–196.
Benthem, J. F. A. K. van (1978). Four paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic 7, 49–72.
Bernays, P. (1979). Bemerkungen zu Lorenzen’s Stellungnahme in der Philosophie der Mathematik. In: Konstruktionen versus Positionen, Vol. 1. Ed. by K. Lorenz. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3–16.
Coquand, T. (1986). An analysis of Girard’s paradox. In: Proceedings Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, 227–236.
Curry, H. (1942). The inconsistency of certain formal logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 7, 115–117.
Dawson, Jr., J. W. (1988). The reception of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. In: Gödel’s Theorem in focus. Ed. by S. G. Shanker. Routledge, 74–95.
Došen, K. and P. Schroeder-Heister (1993). Substructural Logics. Vol. 2. Studies in Logic and Computation. Oxford University Press.
Dummett, M. (1981). Frege. Philosophy language. 2nd ed. Duckworth.
Dummett, M. (1991). The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Duckworth.
Ekman, J. (2016). Self-contradictory reasoning. In: Advances in Proof-Theoretic Semantics. Ed. by T. Piecha and P. Schroeder-Heister. Springer, 211–229.
Feferman, S. (2000). Does reductive proof theory have a viable rationale? Erkenntnis 53, 63–96.
Girard, J.-Y. (1987). Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50, 1–102.
Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38, 173–198.
Gray, J. (2013). Henri Poincaré. Princeton University Press.
Grelling, K. and L. Nelsen (1908). Bemerkungen zu den Paradoxien von Russell und Burali-Forti. Abhandlungen der Fries’schen Schule II. reprinted in: Nelson, Leonard. Gesammelte Schriften III. Die kritische Methode in ihrer Bedeutung für die Wissenschaften. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1974, pp. 95–127, 301–334.
Hallnäs, L. (1991). Partial inductive definitions. Theoretical Computer Science 87, 115–142.
Hallnäs, L. (2006). On the proof-theoretic foundation of general definition theory. Synthese 148, 589–602.
Hallnäs, L. (2016). On the proof-theoretic foundations of set theory. In: Advances in Proof-Theoretic Semantics. Ed. by T. Piecha and P. Schroeder-Heister. Springer, 161–171.
Hilbert, D. (1917). Mengenlehre. Vorlesung Sommersemester 1917, Ausarbeitung (Bibliothek des Mathematischen Instituts der Universität Göttingen).
Hurkens, A. J. C. (1995). A simplification of Girard’s paradox. In: Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications: Second International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications, TLCA ’95 Edinburgh, United Kingdom, April 10–12, 1995 Proceedings. Ed. by M. Dezani-Ciancaglini and G. Plotkin. Springer, 266–278.
Irvine, A. D. and H. Deutsch (2016). Russell’s paradox. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by E. N. Zalta. Winter 2016 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Kahle, R. (2006). David Hilbert über Paradoxien. Pré-Publicações. Preprint Number 06-17. Departamento de Matemática, Universidade de Coimbra.
L. E. J. Brouwer (1975). Collected Works. Vol. 1: Philosophy and Foundations of Mathematics. Edited by A. Heyting. North-Holland.
Lambek, J. (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65, 154–169.
Lethen, T. (2021). Kurt Gödel on logical, theological, and physical antinomies. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 27, 267–297.
Löb, M. (1955). Solution of a problem of Leon Henkin. Journal of Symbolic Logic 20, 115–118.
Martin-Löf, P. (1971). A Theory of Types. Tech. rep. Department of Mathematics, University of Stockholm.
Petrolo, M. and P. Pistone (2019). On Paradoxes in Normal Form. Topoi 38, 605–617.
Prawitz, D. (1965). Natural Deduction. Vol. 3. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Studies in Philosophy. Almqvist & Wiksell.
Prior, A. N. (1960). The runabout inference-ticket. Analysis 21, 38–39.
Read, S. (2010). General-elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39, 557–576.
Ruitenburg, W. (1991). Constructive logic and the paradoxes. Modern Logic 1, 271–301.
Santos, P. G. (2020). Diagonalization in Formal Mathematics. BestMasters. Springer.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (2012a). Paradoxes and structural rules. In: Insolubles and Consequences: Essays in honour of Stephen Read. Ed. by C. D. Novaes and O. T. Hjortland. College Publications, 203–211.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (2012b). Proof-theoretic semantics, self-contradiction, and the format of deductive reasoning. Topoi 31, 77–85.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (2016a). Open problems in proof-theoretic semantics. In: Advances in Proof-Theoretic Semantics. Ed. by T. Piecha and P. Schroeder-Heister. Springer, 253–283.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (2016b). Proof-theoretic semantics. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by E. N. Zalta. Winter 2016 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Schroeder-Heister, P. (2016c). Restricting initial sequents: the trade-offs between identity, contraction and cut. In: Advances in Proof Theory. Ed. by R. Kahle, T. Strahm, and T. Studer. Springer, 339–351.
Sommaruga-Rosolemos, G. (1991). Fixed point constructions in various theories of Mathematical Logic. Bibliopolis.
Tennant, N. (1982). Proof and paradox. Dialectica 36, 265–296.
Thiel, C. (2019). Heinrich Behmanns Beitrag zur Grundlagendebatte. In: Siegener Beiträge zur Geschichte und Philosophie der Mathematik. Ed. by D. Koenig, G. Nickel, S. Shokrani, and R. Krömer. Vol. 11. Universitätsverlag Siegen, 191–202.
Tranchini, L. (2015). Harmonising harmony. The Review of Symbolic Logic 8, 41–423.
Tranchini, L. (2016). Proof-theoretic semantics, paradoxes and the distinction between sense and denotation. Journal of Logic and Computation 26, 495–512.
Tranchini, L. (2021). Proof-theoretic harmony: towards an intensional account. Synthese 198(Suppl 5), 1145–1176.
Troelstra, A. S. and H. Schwichtenberg (2000). Basic Proof Theory. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.
Weaver, N. (2012). Intuitionism and the liar paradox. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163, 1437–1445.
Weyl, H. (1918). Das Kontinuum. Veit.
Weyl, H. (1987). The Continuum: A Critical Examination of the Foundation of Analysis.
Thomas Jefferson University Press. Corrected re-publication, Dover 1994. English translation of Weyl (1918).
Zermelo, E. (1908). Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mathematik. I. Mathematische Annalen. English translation in Zermelo (1967), 261–281.
Zermelo, E. (1967). Inverstigations in the foundations of set theory I. In: From Frege to Gödel. Ed. by J. van Heijenoort. Harvard University Press, 199–215.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. If you remix, transform, or build upon this chapter or a part thereof, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kahle, R., Santos, P.G. (2024). Paradoxes, Intuitionism, and Proof-Theoretic Semantics. In: Piecha, T., Wehmeier, K.F. (eds) Peter Schroeder-Heister on Proof-Theoretic Semantics. Outstanding Contributions to Logic, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50981-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50981-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-50980-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-50981-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)