Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 October 2021
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Paradoxes and Inconsistent Mathematics , pp. 303 - 318Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Abad, J. (2008).
The inclosure schema and the solution to the
paradoxes of self-reference.
Synthese,
160(2):183–202.Google Scholar
Aczel, P. (1988).
Non-Well-Founded Sets. Number 14 in CSLI Lecture
Notes. CSLI
Publications.Google Scholar
Allwein, G. and
Dunn, J.
M. (1993).
Kripke semantics for linear logic.
Journal of Symbolic Logic,
58(2):514–545.Google Scholar
Anderson, A.
R. and
Belnap, N.
D. (1975).
Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity,
volume 1. Princeton University
Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, A.
R.,
Belnap, N.
D., and
Dunn, J. (1992).
Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity,
volume 2. Princeton University
Press.Google Scholar
Arruda, A.
I. and
Batens, D. (1982).
Russell’s set versus the universal set in
paraconsistent set theory. Logique et
Analyse,
25(8):121–133.Google Scholar
Asenjo, F. (1966).
A calculus of antinomies.
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic,
7:103–105.Google Scholar
Asenjo, F. (1975).
Logic of antinomies. Notre
Dame Journal of Formal Logic,
16:17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asenjo, F.
G. (1989). Toward an
antinomic mathematics. In [Priest et al., 1989], pages
394–414.Google Scholar
Azzouni, J. (2006).
Tracking Reason: Proof, Consequence, and Truth.
Oxford University
Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, A. (2013).
Non-classical metatheory for non-classical
logics. Journal of Philosophical
Logic,
(42):335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badia, G. and
Weber, Z. (2019).
A substructural logic for inconsistent
mathematics. In
Reiger, A. and
Young, G., editors,
Dialetheism and Its Applications, pp.
155–176.
Springer.Google Scholar
Badici, E. (2008).
The liar paradox and the inclosure
schema. Australasian Journal of
Philosophy,
86(4):583–596.Google Scholar
Batens, D. (2019).
Looting liars masking models. In
Baskent, C. and
Ferguson, T., editors,
Graham Priest on Dialetheism and Paraconsistency,
pages 139–164.
Springer.Google Scholar
Batens, D.,
Mortensen, C.,
Priest, G., and
van Bendegem, J.-P., editors
(2000). Frontiers of Paraconsistent
Logic. Research Studies
Press.Google Scholar
Beall, J. (1999).
From full blooded platonism to really full blooded
platonism. Philosophia Mathematica,
7(3):322–325.Google Scholar
Beall, J. (2011).
Multiple-conclusion LP and default
classicality. Review of Symbolic
Logic,
4(2):326–336.Google Scholar
Beall, J.
(2013a). Free of detachment: logic,
rationality, and gluts.
Noûs,
49(2):410–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beall, J.
(2013b). Shrieking against gluts: the
solution to the “just true” problem.
Analysis,
73(3):438–445.Google Scholar
Beall, J.,
Brady, R.
T.,
Hazen, A.,
Priest, G., and
Restall, G. (2006).
Relevant restricted quantification.
Journal of Philosophical Logic,
35:587–598.Google Scholar
Beall, J. and
Colyvan, M.
(2001a). Heaps of gluts and hyde-ing the
sorites. Mind,
110:401–408.Google Scholar
Beall, J. and
Colyvan, M.
(2001b). Looking for
contradictions. Australasian Journal of
Philosophy,
79:564–9.Google Scholar
Beall, J.,
Glanzberg, M., and
Ripley, D. (2018).
Formal Theories of Truth. Oxford
University Press.Google Scholar
Beall, J. and
Murzi, J. (2013).
Two flavors of curry paradox.
Journal of Philosophy,
110(3):143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Běhounek, L. and
Cintula, P. (2005).
Fuzzy class theory. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems,
154(1):34–55.Google Scholar
Běhounek, L. and
Haniková, Z. (2015).
Set theory and arithmetic in fuzzy
logic. In Montagna, F., editor,
Petr Hajek on Mathematical Fuzzy Logic, pages
63–89.
Springer. Outstanding Contributions
to Logic Series, volume 6.Google Scholar
Bell, J.
L. (2008). A
Primer of Infinitesimal Analysis. Cambridge
University Press. Second Edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J.
L. (2014).
Intuitionistic Set Theory. College
Publications. Studies in Logic 50.Google Scholar
Belnap, N.
D. and
Dunn, J.
M. (1981).
Entailment and the disjunctive
syllogism. Contemporary Philosophy: A New
Survey,
1:337–366.Google Scholar
Berto, F. (2008).
Adunaton and material exclusion.
Australasian Journal of Philosophy,
86(2):165–190.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G. and
Maclane, S. (1999).
Algebra, Third Edition. American
Mathematical Society. First Edition
1967.Google Scholar
Bolzano, B. (1950
[1851]). Paradoxes of the Infinite.
Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Translated by F. Prihonsky.Google Scholar
Bolzano, B. (1973).
Theory of Science. D. Reidel
Publishing. Edited, with an introduction, by J.
Berg. Translated by B. Terrell.Google Scholar
Boolos, G. (1971).
The iterative conception of set.
Journal of Philosophy,
68(8):215–231.
Reprinted in in [Boolos, 1998].Google Scholar
Boyer, C. (1959).
The History of the Calculus and Its Conceptual
Development. Dover
Publications.Google Scholar
Braddon-Mitchell, D. and
Miller, K. (2006).
The physics of extended simples.
Analysis,
66(3):222–226.Google Scholar
Brady, R. (1971).
The consistency of the axioms of the axioms of
abstraction and extensionality in a three-valued
logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal
Logic, 12:
447–453.Google Scholar
Brady, R., editor
(2003). Relevant Logics and Their Rivals,
Volume II: A Continuation of the Work of Richard Sylvan, Robert
Meyer, Val Plumwood and Ross Brady.
Ashgate.Google Scholar
Brady, R. and
Mortensen, C. (2014).
Logic. In
Oppy, G. and
Trakakis, N., editors,
History of Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand,
pp. 679–705.
Springer,
Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Brady, R.
T. (1989). The
non-triviality of dialectical set theory. In [Priest et al., 1989],
pages 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, R.
T. and
Routley, R. (1989).
The non-triviality of extensional dialectical set theory. In [Priest et
al., 1989], pages
415–436.Google Scholar
Brentano, F. (1988).
Philosophical Investigations on Space, Time and the
Continuum. Croom Helm. B.
Smith (trans).Google Scholar
Bridges, D. and
Vita, L.
S. (2011).
Apartness and Uniformity: A Constructive
Development.
Springer.Google Scholar
Brown, B. and
Priest, G. (2004).
Chunk and permeate i: the infinitesimal
calculus. Journal of Philosophical
Logic,
33:379–388.Google Scholar
Burgess, J.
P. (2005).
No requirement of relevance. In
Shapiro, S., editor, The
Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic,
pages 727–750.
Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, J.
P. and
Woods, J. (2015).
Review of the Boundary Stones of Thought by Ian
Rumfitt. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, October 24,
2015.Google Scholar
Buskes, G. and
van Rooij, A. (1997).
Topological Spaces: From Distance to Neighborhood.
Springer.Google Scholar
Cantini, A. (2003).
The undecidability of Grĭsin’s set
theory. Studia Logica,
74(3):345–368.Google Scholar
Cantor, G. (1895).
Beiträge zur begründung der
transfiniten mengenlehre (zweiter artikel).
Mathematische Annalen,
49:207–246.Google Scholar
Cantor, G. (1915).
Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite
Numbers. Dover. Edited,
translated, and introduced by P. E. B. Jourdain, from [Cantor,
1895].Google Scholar
Cantor, G. (1967).
Letter to Dedekind. In [van Heijenoort, 1967], pages
113–117. 1899.Google Scholar
Caret, C.
R. and
Hjortland, O.
T., editors (2015).
Foundations of Logical Consequence.
Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
Caret, C.
R. and
Weber, Z. (2015).
A note on contraction-free logic for
validity. Topoi,
31(1):63–74.Google Scholar
Carnielli, W. and
Coniglio, M.
E. (2016).
Paraconsistent Logic: Consistency, Contradiction and
Negation.
Springer.Google Scholar
Carnielli, W.,
Coniglio, M., and
Marcos, J. (2007).
Logics of formal inconsistency. In
Gabbay, D. and
Guenthner, F., editors,
Handbook of Philosphical Logic, volume 14, pages
1–93.
Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Casati, F. and
Fujikawa, N. (2019).
Nothingness, meinongianism, and inconsistent
mereology. Synthese,
196:3739–3772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casati, R. and
Varzi, A.
C. (1999).
Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial
Representation. MIT
Press.Google Scholar
Chang, C. (1963).
The axiom of comprehension in infinite valued
logic. Mathematica Scandinavia,
13:9–30.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R.
M. (1984).
Boundaries as dependent particulars.
Grazer philosophische Studien,
10:87–95.Google Scholar
Chvalovský, K. and
Cintula, P. (2012).
Note on deduction theorems in contraction-free
logics. Mathematical Logic
Quarterly,
58(3):236–243.Google Scholar
Cintula, P. and
Paoli, F. (2016).
Is mutliset consequence trivial? Synthese, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1209-7.Google Scholar
Clarke, B.
L. (1985).
Individuals and points. Notre
Dame Journal of Formal Logic,
26:61–75.Google Scholar
Cohen, S.
M.,
Curd, P., and
Reeve, C., editors
(2000). Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy:
From Thales to Aristotle.
Hackett.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M.
(2008a). The ontological commitments of
inconsistent theories. Philosophical
Studies,
141(1):115–123.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M.
(2008b). Vagueness and
truth. In Dyke, H., editor,
From Truth to Reality: New Essays in Logic and
Metaphysics, pp.
29–40.
Routledge.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M. (2009).
Applying inconsistent mathematics. In
New Waves in Philosophy of Mathematics, pp.
160–172.
Palgrave
Macmillan.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M. (2012).
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics.
Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
Cook, R.
T. (2014).
There is no paradox of logical
validity. Logical Universalis,
8(3–4):447–467.Google Scholar
Cotnoir, A. and
Baxter, D., editors
(2014). Composition as Identity.
Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
Curry, H.
B. (1942).
The inconsistency of certain formal
logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic,
7:115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da
Costa, N.
(2000). Paraconsistent mathematics. In [Batens et al.,
2000], pages
165–180.Google Scholar
da
Costa, N. C.,
Krause, D., and
Bueno, O. (2007).
Paraconsistent logics and paraconsistency. In [Jacquette, 2007], pages
791–912.Google Scholar
da
Costa, N. C.
A. (1974).
On the theory of inconsistent formal
systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal
Logic,
15:497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauben, J.
W. (1979).
Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the
Infinite. Princeton. University
Press.Google Scholar
Dedekind, R. (1901).
Essays on the Theory of Numbers.
Dover. Ed. and trans. by W. W.
Beman, 1901. Includes Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen
[1872] and Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? [1888].
Dover Edition 1963.Google Scholar
Deloup, F. (2005).
The fundamental group of the circle is
trivial. American Mathematical
Monthly,
112(5):417–425.Google Scholar
Devlin, K.
J. (1979).
Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory.
Springer. Second Edition 1993,
retitled “The Joy of Sets.”Google Scholar
Dicher, B. and
Paoli, F. (2019).
ST, LP, and tolerant metainferences.
In Baskent, C. and
Ferguson, T., editors,
Graham Priest on Dialetheism and Paraconsistency,
pages 383–408.
Springer.Google Scholar
Dümont, J. and
Mau, F. (1998).
Are there true contradictions? A critical discussion
of Graham Priest’s Beyond the Limits of
Thought. Journal for General
Philosophy of Science,
29(2):289–299.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. (1987).
Relevant predication 1: The formal
theory. Journal of Philosophical
Logic,
16:347–381.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. and
Restall, G. (2002).
Relevance logic. In
Gabbay, D.
M. and
Günthner, F., editors,
Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 6, pages
1–128.
Kluwer. Second
Edition.Google Scholar
Dunn, J.
M. (1979).
A theorem in 3-valued model theory with connections
to number theory, type theory, and relevant logic.
Studia Logica,
38:149–169.Google Scholar
Dunn, J.
M. (1988). The
impossibility of certain higher-order non-classical logics with
extensionality. In [Austin, 1988], pages
261–280.Google Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.
N. and
Dzhafarov, D. (2010).
Sorites without vagueness I: classificatory
sorites. Theoria,
76(1):4–24.Google Scholar
Estrada-González, L. (2016).
Prospects for triviality. In
Anreas, H. and
Verdée, P., editors,
Logical Studies of Paraconsistent Reasoning in Science and
Mathematics.
Springer.Google Scholar
Euclid,
(1956). The Thirteen Books of the
Elements. Dover. Edited,
translated, and annotated by T. L. Heath.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1984).
Toward useful type-free theories, I.
Journal of Symbolic Logic,
49(1):75–111.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2020).
Properties, propositions, and conditionals. Australasian
Philosophical Review, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Field, H.,
Lederman, H., and
Øgaard, T.
F. (2017).
Prospects for a naive theory of
classes. Notre Dame Journal of Formal
Logic,
58(4):461–506.Google Scholar
Fitch, F. (1964).
Universal metalanguages for
philosophy. The Review of
Metaphysics,
17(3):396–402.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, A.
Bar-Hillel, Y., and
Levy, A. (1958).
Foundations of Set Theory. North
Holland.Google Scholar
Frankel, C. (2005).
Worlds on Fire: Volcanoes on the Earth, Moon, Mars, Venus,
and Io. Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
Franks, C. (2009).
The Autonomy of Mathematical Knowledge.
Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1885).
Ü ber formale Theorien der
Arithmetik. Sitzungsberichte der Jenaischen
Gesellschaft für Medizin und Naturwissenschaft,
2:94–104.
Reprinted in Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and
Philosophy. Basil Blackwell, 1984.Google Scholar
Frege, G.
(1893/1903a). The Basic Laws of
Arithmetic. Oxford.
Translated and edited by P. A. Ebert and M. Rossberg, with C. Wright;
appendix by R. T. Cook.Google Scholar
Frege, G.
(1893/1903b). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik,
Begriffsschriftlich abgeleitet. Verlag
Hermann Pohle.Google Scholar
French, R. (2016).
Structural reflexivity and the paradoxes of
self-reference. Ergo,
3(5):113–131.Google Scholar
French, R. and
Ripley, D. (2015).
Contractions of noncontractive consequence
relations. Review of Symbolic
Logic,
8(3):506–528.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. and
Meyer, R. (1992).
Whither relevant arithmetic?
Journal of Symbolic Logic,
57:824–31.Google Scholar
Galatos, N.,
Jipsen, P.,
Kowalski, T., and
Ono, H. (2007).
Residuated Lattices.
Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gilles, D., editor
(1992). Revolutions in Mathematics.
Oxford Unviersity
Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, P.
C. (1974). The
consistency of partial set theory without extensionality. In [Jech,
1974], pages
147–153.Google Scholar
Girard, P. and
Weber, Z. (2019).
Modal logic without contraction in a metatheory
without contraction. Review of Symbolic
Logic,
4(12):685–701.Google Scholar
Goddard, L. and
Routley, R. (1973).
The Logic of Significance and Context.
Scottish Academic
Press.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1964).
What is Cantor’s continuum
problem? In
Benacerraf, P. and
Putnam, H., editors,
Philosophy of Mathematics, pages
258–273.
Cambridge University Press. Paper
originally written in 1947.Google Scholar
Goodship, L. (1996).
On dialethism. Australasian
Journal of Philosophy,
74(1):153–161.Google Scholar
Grey, J. (2008).
Plato’s Ghost: The Modernist Transformation of
Mathematics. Princeton University
Press.Google Scholar
Gris̆in, V. (1982).
Predicate and set theoretic calculi based on logic
without contraction rules. Mathematics of
USSR–Izvestija,
18(1):41–59.Google Scholar
Hájek, A. (2016).
Philosophical heuristics and philosophical
methodology. In
Cappelen, H.,
Gendler, T., and
Hawthorne, J., editors,
Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology.
Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
Halbach, V. (2014).
Axiomatic Theories of Truth.
Cambridge University Press. Second
Revised Edition.Google Scholar
Hamkins, J.
D. and
Kikuchi, M. (2016).
Set-theoretic mereology.
Logic and Logical Philosophy,
25(3):285–308.Google Scholar
Hausdorff, F. (1957).
Set Theory. Chelsea Publishing
Co.. Third Edition. First Edition
1914.Google Scholar
Hausdorff, F. (2005).
Hausdorff on Ordered Sets. American
Mathematical Society. Edited, with notes, by J. M.
Plotkin.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D.
(1902b). Mathematical
problems. Bulletin of the American
Mathematical Society,
8:437–479.
Translated from the 1900 address by Mary Winston
Newton.Google Scholar
Hindley, J.
R. and
Seldin, J.
P. (2008).
Lambda-Calculus and Combinators.
Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
Hinkis, A. (2013).
Proofs of the Cantor–Bernstein Theorem: A
Mathematical Excursion.
Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Hinnion, R. and
Libert, T. (2003).
Positive abstraction and
extensionality. Journal of Symbolic
Logic,
68(3):828–836.Google Scholar
Holmes, M.
R.,
Forster, T., and
Libert, T. (2012).
Alternative set theories. In
Gabbay, D.,
Kanamori, A., and
Woods, J., editors,
Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 6, Sets and
Extensions in the Twentieth Century, pages
559–632.
Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. (1994).
Robust vagueness and the forced-march sorites
paradox. Philosophical
Perspectives,
8:159–188.Google Scholar
Humberstone, L. (2006).
Variations on a theme of Curry.
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic,
47(1):101–131.Google Scholar
Hyde, D. and
Raffman, D. (2018).
Sorites paradox. In Zalta, E., editor, Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/.Google Scholar
Hyde, D. and
Sylvan, R. (1993).
Ubiquitous vagueness without
embarrassment. Acta Analytica,
10(1):7–29.
Reprinted In Hyde, D. and Priest, G., editors, Sociative Logics
and Their Applications, pages 189–1199.
Ashgate.Google Scholar
Jané, I. (1995).
The role of the absolute infinite in Cantor’s
conception of set. Erkenntnis,
42:375–402.Google Scholar
Jaśkowski, S. (1969).
Propositional calculus for contradictory deductive
systems. Studia Logica,
24:143–57.
Originally published in Polish in 1948.Google Scholar
Jones, V. (1998).
A credo of sorts. In
Dales, H. and
Oliveri, G., editors,
Truth in Mathematics, pages
203–214.
Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kahan, W. (1987).
Branch cuts for complex elementary functions, or much
ado about nothing’s sign bit. In
Iserles, A. and
Powell, M. J.
D., editors, The State of
the Art in Numerical Analysis. Clarendon
Press,
Oxford.Google Scholar
Kanamori, A. (1994).
The Higher Infinite: Large Cardinals in Set Theory from
Their Beginnings.
Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1989).
Explanatory unification and the causal structure of
the world. In
Kitcher, P. and
Salmon, W., editors,
Scientific Explanation, pages
410–505.
University of Minnesota
Press.Google Scholar
Komori, Y. (1989).
Illiative combinatory logic based on
BCK-logic. Mathematica Japonica,
34:585–596.Google Scholar
Kuratowski, K. (1962).
Introduction to Set Theory and Topology.
Pergamon. Trans. by L.
Boron.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1976).
Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical
Discovery. Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, E. (2014).
The saddest thing I know about the integers. Scientific
American. Roots of Unity blog, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/the-saddest-thing-i-know-about-the-integers/.Google Scholar
Landini, G. (2009).
Russell’s schema, not Priest’s
inclosure. History and Philosophy of
Logic,
30(2):105–139.Google Scholar
Lawvere, W. (1969).
Diagonal arguments and Cartesian closed
categories. Lecture Notes in
Mathematics,
92:134–145.Google Scholar
Lawvere, W. and
Schanuel, S. (2009).
Conceptual Mathematics: A First Introduction to
Categories. Cambridge University
Press. First appeared from Buffalo Workshop Press
1991.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. (2002).
The Labyrinth of the Continuum: Writings on the Continuum
Problem, 1672–1686. Yale University
Press. Translated and edited by R. T. W.
Arthur.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1999).
Many, but almost one. In
Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, pages
164–182.
Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
Libert, T. (2005).
Models for paraconsistent set theory.
Journal of Applied Logic,
3:15–41.Google Scholar
MacCaull, W. (1996).
Kripke semantics for logics with BCK
implication. Bulletin of the Section of
Logic,
25:41–51.Google Scholar
Mancosu, P., editor
(2008). The Philosophy of Mathematical
Practice. Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
Mancosu, P. (2011).
Explanation in mathematics. In
Zalta, E., editor,
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
Mares, E. (2019).
The universality of relevance. In
Weber, Z., editor,
Ultralogic as Universal? by Richard Routley.
Synthese Library,
Springer.Google Scholar
Mares, E. and
Paoli, F. (2014).
Logical consequence and the
paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical
Logic,
43:439–469.Google Scholar
Martin, B. (2014).
Dialetheism and the impossibility of the
world. Australasian Journal of
Philosophy,
93(1):61–75.Google Scholar
McCarty, C. (2008).
Completeness and incompleteness for intuitionistic
logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic,
73(4):1315–1327.Google Scholar
McKubre-Jordens, M. and
Weber, Z. (2012).
Real analysis in paraconsistent
logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic,
41(5):901–922.Google Scholar
McKubre-Jordens, M. and
Weber, Z. (2016).
Paraconsistent measurement of the
circle. Australasian Journal of
Logic,
14(1):268–280.Google Scholar
Meadows, T. (2015).
Unpicking Priest’s bootstraps.
Thought: A Journal of Philosophy,
4(3):181–188.Google Scholar
Meadows, T. and
Weber, Z. (2016).
Computation in non-classical
foundations?
Philosophers’ Imprint,
16:1–17.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. (1975).
Arithmetic formulated relevantly.
Typescript, Australasian Journal of Logic,
18(5):154–288.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. (1976).
The consistency of arithmetic.
typescript, Australasian Journal of Logic,
18(5):289–379.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. (1985a).
A farewell to entailment. In
Dorn, G., et al., editors,
Foundations of Logic and Linguistics, pages
577–636.
Springer Science and Business
Media.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. (1985b).
Proving semantical completeness
“relevantly” for R. Logic
Research Paper (23). RSSS Australian
National University.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. (1996).
Kurt Gödel and the consistency of
R##. In Hajek, P., editor,
Gödel ’96: Logical Foundations of Mathematics,
Computer Science and Physics – Kurt Gödel’s
Legacy, Brno, Czech Republic, August 1996, Proceedings,
pages 247–256.
Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. (1998).
⊃-E is admissible in “true”
relevant arithmetic. Journal of
Philosophical Logic,
27:327–351.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. and
Mortensen, C. (1984).
Inconsistent models for relevant
arithmetics. Journal of Symbolic
Logic,
49:917–929.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. and
Mortensen, C. (1987).
Alien intruders in relevant arithmetic. Technical
Report, TR-ARP(9/87).Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. and
Ono, H. (1994).
The finite model property for BCK and
BCIW. Studia Logica,
53:107–118.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. and
Restall, G. (1999).
“Strenge” arithmetics.
Logique et Analyse,
42:205–220.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. and
Routley, R. (1977).
Extensional reduction (I).
The Monist,
60:355–369.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K.,
Routley, R., and
Dunn, J.
M. (1978).
Curry’s paradox.
Analysis,
39:124–128.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.
K. and
Urbas, I. (1986).
Conservative extension in relevant
arithmetic. Mathematical Logic
Quarterly,
32(1-5):45–50.Google Scholar
Mortensen, C. (1988).
Inconsistent number systems.
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic,
29:45–60.Google Scholar
Moschovakis, Y. (2010).
Kleene’s amazing second recursion
theorem. Bulletin of Symbolic
Logic,
16(2):189–239.Google Scholar
Murzi, J. and
Rossi, L. (2020).
Generalized revenge.
Australasian Journal of Philosophy,
98:153–177.Google Scholar
Myhill, J. (1960).
Some remarks on the notion of proof.
Journal of Philosophy,
57:461–471.Google Scholar
Myhill, J. (1975).
Levels of implication. In
Anderson, A.
R.,
Marcus, R.
C., and
Martin, R.
M., editors, The Logical
Enterprise, pages
179–85. Yale
University Press.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. (1976).
The Portable Nietzsche.
Penguin. Translated, edited, and
with an introduction by W. Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Øgaard, T.
F. (2016).
Paths to triviality. Journal
of Philosophical Logic,
45(3):237–276.Google Scholar
Øgaard, T.
F. (2017).
Skolem functions in non-classical
logics. Australasian Journal of
Logic,
14(1):181–225.Google Scholar
Omori, H. (2015).
Remarks on naive set theory based on
LP. Review of Symbolic Logic,
8(2):279–295.Google Scholar
Omori, H. and
Weber, Z. (2019).
Just true? On the metatheory for paraconsistent
truth. Logique et Analyse,
248:415–433.Google Scholar
Ono, H. (2010).
Logics without the contraction rule and residuated
lattices. Australasian Journal of
Logic,
8:50–81.Google Scholar
Ono, H. and
Komori, Y. (1985).
Logic without the contraction rule.
Journal of Symbolic Logic,
50:169–201.Google Scholar
Pavlović, D. (1992).
On the structure of paradoxes.
Archive for Mathematical Logic,
31(6):397–406.Google Scholar
Petersen, U. (2000).
Logic without contraction as based on inclusion and
unrestriced abstraction. Studia
Logica,
64:365–403.Google Scholar
Pitts, A.
M. and
Taylor, P. (1989).
A note on Russell’s paradox in locally
Cartesian closed categories. Studia
Logica,
48(3):377–387.Google Scholar
Pratt-Harmon, I. (2007).
First order mereotopology. In
Aiello, M.,
Pratt-Harmon, I.
E., and van
Benthem, J.,
editors, Handbook of Spatial Logics, pages
13–98.
Springer.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (1980).
Sense, entailment and modus
ponens. Journal of Philosophical
Logic,
9:415–435.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (1989).
Reductio ad absurdum et modus tollendo ponens. In [Priest et al., 1989],
pages 613–626.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (1990).
Boolean negation and all that.
Journal of Philosophical Logic,
19:201–215.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(1994b). What could the least inconsistent
number be?
Logique et Analyse,
145:3–12.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(1997a). Inconsistent models of arithmetic
part I: finite models. Journal of
Philosophical Logic,
26:223–35.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(1997b). On a paradox of Hilbert and
Bernays. Journal of Philosophical
Logic,
26:45–56.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2000).
Inconsistent models of arithmetic, II: the general
case. Journal of Symbolic Logic,
65:1519–1529.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(2002a). Beyond the Limits of Thought.
Oxford University Press. Second
Edition. First Edition 1995, Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(2002b). Paraconsistent
logic. In Gabbay, D. M. and
Günthner, F., editors,
Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 6, pages
287–394.
Kluwer. Second
Edition.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(2006b). In Contradiction: A Study of the
Transconsistent. Oxford University
Press. Second Edition.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(2006c). Spiking the field
artillery. In Beall, J. and
Armour-Garb, B., editors,
Deflationism and Paradox, pp.
41–52. Oxford
University Press.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2008).
An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic.
Cambridge University Press. Second
Edition.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2010).
Inclosures, vagueness, and
self-reference. Notre Dame Journal of Formal
Logic,
51(1):69–84.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(2013a). Indefinite extensibility –
dialetheic style. Studia Logica,
101:1263–1275.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(2017a). A note on the axiom of
countability. IfCoLog Journal of Logics and
Their Applications,
4:1351–1356.
First published in Al-Mukhatabat, 2012,
1(23–32).Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(2017b). What if? The exploration of an
idea. Australasian Journal of
Logic, 14(1). Special issue:
Non-Classicality, edited by Z. Weber, P. Girard, and M. McKubre-Jordens,
M.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(2019a). Dialetheism and the sorites
paradox. In Ohms, S. and
Zardini, E., editors,
The Sorites Paradox, pages
135–150.
Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
Priest, G.
(2019b). Some comments and
replies. In Baskent, C. and
Ferguson, T., editors,
Graham Priest on Dialetheism and Paraconsistency,
pages 575–675.
Springer.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2020),
Metatheory and dialetheism.
Logical Investigations
26
(2020):48–59.Google Scholar
Priest, G.,
Beall, J., and
Armour-Garb, B., editors
(2004). The Law of Non-Contradiction.
Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Priest, G. and
Routley, R. (1983).
On Paraconsistency. Research School of Social
Sciences, Australian National
University. Reprinted as introductory chapters in
[Priest et al., 1989].Google Scholar
Priest, G. and
Routley, R.
(1989a). Applications of paraconsistent logic. In [Priest
et al., 1989], pages
367–393.Google Scholar
Priest, G. and
Routley, R.
(1989b). The philosophical significance and inevitability
of paraconsistency. In [Priest et al., 1989], pages
483–537.Google Scholar
Priest, G.,
Routley, R., and
Norman, J., editors
(1989). Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the
Inconsistent. Philosophia
Verlag.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1994).
Peirce’s continuum. In
Ketner, K., editor,
Peirce and Contemporary Thought: Philosophical
Inquiries. Fordham University
Press.Google Scholar
Rayo, A. and
Uzquiano, G., editors
(2006). Absolute Generality.
Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
Reinhard, W.
N. (1974). Remarks on
reflection principles, large cardinals, and elementary embeddings. In
[Jech, 1974].Google Scholar
Restall, G. (1992).
A note on naïve set theory in
LP. Notre Dame Journal
of Formal Logic,
33:422–432.Google Scholar
Restall, G. (1994).
On Logics without Contraction. PhD Thesis,
University of
Queensland.Google Scholar
Restall, G.
(2010a). Models for substructural
arithmetics. Australasian Journal of
Logic,
8:82–99.Google Scholar
Restall, G. (2013).
Assertion, denial and non-classical
theories. In Tanaka, K.,
Berto, F.,
Mares, E., and
Paoli, F., editors,
Paraconsistency: Logic and Applications, pages
81–99.
Springer.Google Scholar
Ripley, D. (2013).
Paradoxes and failures of cut.
Australasian Journal of Philosophy,
91(1):139–164.Google Scholar
Ripley, D.
(2015d). Naive set theory and nontransitive
logic. Review of Symbolic Logic,
8(3):553–571.Google Scholar
Rizza, D. (2013).
Deconstructing a topological sorites.
Philosophia Mathematica,
21(3):361–364.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, L. (2021).
On structural contraction and why it
fails. Synthese
198, pages
2695–2720.Google Scholar
Routley, R. (1977).
Ultralogic as
Universal?
First appeared in two parts in The Relevance Logic
Newsletter
2(1):51–90,
January 1977 and 2(2):138-175, May 1977; reprinted as appendix to
[Routley, 1980b], pp. 892–962; new edition as The Sylvan
Jungle, volume 4, edited by Z. Weber, Synthese Library,
2019.Google Scholar
Routley, R. (1979).
Dialectical logic, semantics and
metamathematics. Erkenntnis,
14:301–331.Google Scholar
Routley, R.
(1980a). The choice of logical foundations:
non-classical choices and the ultralogical choice.
Studia Logica,
39(1):77–98.Google Scholar
Routley, R.
(1980b). Exploring Meinong’s Jungle and
Beyond. Philosophy
Department, RSSS, Australian National University,
Canberra. Departmental Monograph number 3.Google Scholar
Routley, R. (1983).
Nihilism and nihilist logics.
Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosophy, no.
4, Department of Philosophy at the Australian National
University.Google Scholar
Routley, R. and
Meyer, R.
K. (1976).
Dialectical logic, classical logic and the
consistency of the world. Studies in Soviet
Thought,
16:1–25.Google Scholar
Routley, R.,
Plumwood, V.,
Meyer, R.
K., and
Brady, R.
T. (1982).
Relevant Logics and Their Rivals.
Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Routley, R. and
Routley, V. (1985).
Negation and contradiction.
Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas,
19:201–231.Google Scholar
Rubin, H. and
Rubin, J.
E. (1985 [1963]).
Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice.
North Holland.Google Scholar
Rudin, W. (1953).
Principles of Mathematical Analysis.
McGraw-Hill. Third Edition
1976.Google Scholar
Russell, B.
(1905b). On some difficulties in the theory
of transfinite numbers and order types.
Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society,
4:29–53.Google Scholar
Russell, G. (2018).
Logical nihilism: could there be no
logic?
Philosophical Issues,
28(1):308–324.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. (2011).
Deflating logical consequence.
Philosophical Quarterly,
61(243):320–342.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1997).
Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology.
Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S., editor
(2005). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of
Mathematics and Logic. Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. and
Wright, C. (2006).
All things indefinitely extensible. In [Rayo and Uzquiano, 2006], pages
255–304.Google Scholar
Sider, T. (2000).
Simply possible. Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research,
60(3):585–590.Google Scholar
Simons, P. (2004).
Extended simples: a third way between atoms and
gunk. The Monist,
87:371–85.Google Scholar
Skolem, T. (1963).
Studies on the axiom of
comprehension. Notre Dame Journal of Formal
Logic,
4:162–170.Google Scholar
Slaney, J. (1982).
The square root of two is irrational (and no funny business).
Typescript.Google Scholar
Slaney, J.
K. (1989). RWX is not
Curry-paraconsistent. In [Priest et al., 1989], pages
472–480.Google Scholar
Slaney, J.
K.,
Meyer, R.
K., and
Restall, G. (1996).
Linear arithmetic desecsed. Technical Report TR-ARP-2-96, Automated
Reasoning Project, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (1997).
Boundaries: an essay in
mereotopology. In Hahn, L., editor, The
Philosophy of Roderick Chisholm, Library of Living
Philosophers, pages 534–561.
Open Court.Google Scholar
Smith, N.
J. (2000).
The principle of uniform solution (of the paradoxes
of self-reference). Mind,
109:117–22.Google Scholar
Smullyan, R. and
Fitting, M. (1996).
Set Theory and the Continuum Problem.
Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Smullyan, R.
M. (1991).
Some unifying fixed point principles.
Studia Logica,
50(1):129–141.Google Scholar
Sorensen, R. (2008).
Seeing Dark Things: The Philosophy of Shadows.
Oxford University
Press.Google Scholar
Sylvan, R. (1992).
On interpreting truth tables and relevant truth table
logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal
Logic,
33(2):207–215.Google Scholar
Sylvan, R. and
Copeland, J. (2000).
Computability is logic relative. In
Hyde, D. and
Priest, G., editors,
Sociative Logics and Their Applications, pages
189–199.
Ashgate.Google Scholar
Takeuti, G. and
Zaring, W.
M. (1971).
Introduction to Axiomatic Set Theory.
Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Tappenden, J. (2002).
The liar and sorites paradoxes: toward a unified
treatment. In
Williamson, T. and
Graff, D., editors,
Vagueness.
Ashgate. Reprinted from Journal
of Philosophy, 90(11):551–577.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1944).
The semantic conception of truth and the foundations
of semantics. Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research,
4:341–376.Google Scholar
Tarski, A.
(1956a). The concept of truth in formalized languages. In
[Tarski, 1956b], pages 152–278.
Polish original 1933.Google Scholar
Tarski, A.
(1956b). Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers
from 1923 to 1938. Clarendon
Press. Translated by J. H.
Woodger.Google Scholar
Tedder, A. (2015).
Axioms for finite collapse models of
arithmetic. Review of Symbolic
Logic,
3:529–539.Google Scholar
Terui, K. (2004).
Light affine set theory: a naive set theory of
polynomial time. Studia Logica,
77:9–40.Google Scholar
Terui, K. (2014).
Open problems: Brouwer’s fixed point theorem and Cantor’s
naive set theory in substructural and fuzzy logics.
Typescript.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2014).
A conjecture about the interpretation of classical mathematics in naive
set theory, presented at the LMU Paraconsistent Reasoning in Science and
Mathematics Conference in June 2014, at http://sites.google.com/a/uconn.edu/morgan-thomas/ (accessed
May 11, 2020).Google Scholar
Tieszen, R. (2005).
Phenomenology, Logic, and the Philosophy of
Mathematics. Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
Tits, J. (1957).
Sur les analogues algébriques des groupes
semi-simples complexes. In Colloque
d’algebre superieure, pages
261–289.
Librairie
Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
van
Aken, J.
(1986). Axioms for the set theoretic
hierarchy. Journal of Symbolic
Logic,
51(4):992–1004.Google Scholar
van
Atten, M.
(2007). Brouwer Meets Husserl: On the
Phenomenology of Choice Sequences. Synthese Library,
Springer.Google Scholar
van
Bendegem, J.
P. (2003).
Classical arithmetic is quite
unnatural. Logic and Logical
Philosophy,
11:231–249.Google Scholar
van
Dalen, D.
(1997). How connected is the
intuitionistic continuum?
Journal of Symbolic Logic,
62(4):1147–1150.Google Scholar
van
Heijenoort, J., editor
(1967). From Frege to Gödel: A Source
Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931.
Harvard University
Press.Google Scholar
Varzi, A. (2014).
Counting and countenancing. In
Cotnoir, A. and
Baxter, D., editors,
Composition as Identity, pages
47–69. Oxford
University Press.Google Scholar
Varzi, A. (2004).
Boundary. In
Zalta, E.
N., editor, The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
Wansing, H. and
Priest, G. (2015).
External curries. Journal of
Philosophical Logic,
44(4):453–471.Google Scholar
Weber, Z.
(2010a). Explanation and solution in the
inclosure argument. Australasian Journal of
Philosophy,
88(2):353–357.Google Scholar
Weber, Z.
(2010b). Extensionality and restriction in
naive set theory. Studia Logica,
94(1):87 –
104.Google Scholar
Weber, Z.
(2010d). Transfinite numbers in
paraconsistent set theory. Review of
Symbolic Logic,
3(1):71–92.Google Scholar
Weber, Z. (2012).
Transfinite cardinals in paraconsistent set
theory. Review of Symbolic Logic,
5(2):269–293.Google Scholar
Weber, Z.
(2016a). On paraconsistent downward
Löwenheim–Skolem theorems. In
Arazim, P. and
Dancak, M., editors,
Logica Yearbook 2015. College
Publications.Google Scholar
Weber, Z.
(2016b). On closure and truth in substructural theories of
truth. Synthese, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1226-6.Google Scholar
Weber, Z. (2019).
At the limits of thought. In
Baskent, C. and
Ferguson, T., editors,
Graham Priest on Dialetheism and Paraconsistency,
pages 555–574.
Springer (Outstanding Contributions
to Logic).Google Scholar
Weber, Z. (2020).
Property identity and relevant conditionals. Australasian
Philosophical Review, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Weber, Z.,
Badia, G., and
Girard, P. (2016).
What is an inconsistent truth table?
Australasian Journal of Philosophy,
94(3):533–548.Google Scholar
Weber, Z. and
Colyvan, M. (2010).
A topological sorites.
Journal of Philosophy,
107(6):311–325.Google Scholar
Weber, Z. and
Cotnoir, A. (2015).
Inconsistent boundaries.
Synthese,
192(5):1267–1294.Google Scholar
Weber, Z. and
Omori, H. (2019).
Observations on the trivial world.
Erkenntnis,
5(84):975–994.Google Scholar
Weber, Z.,
Ripley, D.,
Priest, G.,
Hyde, D., and
Colyvan, M. (2014).
Tolerating gluts.
Mind,
123(491):791–811.Google Scholar
Weir, A. (2004).
There are no true contradictions. In
Priest, G.,
Beall, J.
C., and
Armour-Garb, B., editors,
The Law of Non-Contradiction, pages
385–417.
Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
White, R. (1979).
The consistency of the axiom of comprehension in the
infinite valued predicate logic of
łukasiewicz. Journal of Philosophical
Logic,
8:503–534.Google Scholar
White, R.
B. (1993).
A consistent theory of attributes in a logic without
contraction. Studia Logica,
52:113–142.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A.
N. and
Russell, B. (1910).
Principia Mathematica. Cambridge
University Press. In three volumes,
1910–1913.Google Scholar
Whittle, B. (2004).
Dialetheism, logical consequence and
hierarchy.
Analysis,
64(4):318–326.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. (1931).
On semi-metric spaces.
American Journal of Mathematics,
53:361–373.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1922).
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
Routledge. Translated by D. E.
Pears and B. F. McGuinness.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953).
Philosophical Investigations.
Blackwell. Trans. G. E. M.
Anscome.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1956).
Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics.
MIT Press. Edited by G. H. von
Wright, R. Rees, and G. E. M. Anscome.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (1976).
Language mastery and the sorites
paradox. In Evans, G. and
McDowell, J., editors,
Truth and Meaning. Oxford
University Press.Google Scholar
Yanofsky, N.
S. (2003).
A universal approach to self-referential paradoxes,
incompleteness and fixed points. Bulletin of
Symbolic Logic,
9(3):362–386.Google Scholar
Young, G. (2005).
Revenge: Dialetheism and Its Expressive
Limitations. PhD Thesis, University of
Glasgow.Google Scholar
Zalta, E. (2007).
Frege’s theorem. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
Zardini, E. (2011).
Truth without contra(di)ction.
Review of Symbolic Logic,
4:498–535.Google Scholar
Zermelo, E. (1967).
Investigations in the foundations of set theory. In [van Heijenoort,
1967], pages
200–215.Google Scholar
Zhong, H. (2012).
Definability and the structure of logical
paradoxes. Australasian Journal of
Philosophy,
90(4):779–788.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. (1996).
Could extended objects be made out of simple parts?
An argument for atomless gunk. Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research,
56:1–29.Google Scholar