Reflections on Russell's antinomy

Paola Cattabriga
{"title":"Reflections on Russell's antinomy","authors":"Paola Cattabriga","doi":"arxiv-2409.05903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We present Russell's antinomy using three distinct deductive systems, which\nare then compared to deepen the logical deductions that lead to the\ncontradiction. Some inferential paths are then presented, alternative to the\ncommonly accepted one, that allow for the formal assertion of the antinomy\nwithout deriving the contradiction, thus preserving the coherence of the\nsystem. In light of this, the purpose of this article is to propose a review of\nthe consequences of asserting Russell's antinomy and, by extension, the\nwidespread belief that any attempt to resolve a paradox is doomed to failure.","PeriodicalId":501306,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - MATH - Logic","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - MATH - Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.05903","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We present Russell's antinomy using three distinct deductive systems, which are then compared to deepen the logical deductions that lead to the contradiction. Some inferential paths are then presented, alternative to the commonly accepted one, that allow for the formal assertion of the antinomy without deriving the contradiction, thus preserving the coherence of the system. In light of this, the purpose of this article is to propose a review of the consequences of asserting Russell's antinomy and, by extension, the widespread belief that any attempt to resolve a paradox is doomed to failure.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对罗素反二元论的思考
我们使用三种不同的演绎体系来阐述罗素的反证法,然后对这三种体系进行比较,以深化导致矛盾的逻辑演绎。然后,我们提出了一些推论路径,以替代公认的推论路径,这些路径允许在不推导出矛盾的情况下正式断言反定式,从而保持了系统的一致性。有鉴于此,本文的目的在于提出对断言罗素的反二律背反的后果进行回顾,并进而对任何解决悖论的尝试都注定要失败的普遍看法进行回顾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Denotational semantics driven simplicial homology? AC and the Independence of WO in Second-Order Henkin Logic, Part II Positively closed parametrized models Neostability transfers in derivation-like theories Tameness Properties in Multiplicative Valued Difference Fields with Lift and Section
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1