Timeline for Formulas for the liar paradox
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2010 at 9:57 | comment | added | tomate | Thanks for the interesting reference, I'm going through it. | |
| Jun 11, 2010 at 13:37 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Oh yes, it has definitely been carried out. For example, see plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-revision. There are various choices of limit rules used by Herzeberger, Gupta and others (see Philip Welch for some interesting criticism). | |
| Jun 10, 2010 at 23:35 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @Joel: Your comment reminds me of a remark that Kripke makes in his paper on page 697, that extending his work to transfinite levels lead to "mathematical difficulties that make the the problem highly nontrivial." Do you know what he is talking about and whether he or others have carried out this transfinite extension? | |
| Jun 10, 2010 at 17:58 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Indeed, and there has been quite a bit of work along similar lines, leading to the subject of Revision Theories of Truth. The basic idea is to introduce a truth predicate T(x). It is unproblematic to apply it to assertions in the base language; the difficulty arises from attempting to apply T to assertions in the language with T. So one can proceed inductively, saying that if $\varphi$ is true at a stage, then $T(\varphi)$ becomes true at the next stage. Kripke in effect seeks fixed points in this procedure, and others have considered more complex rules at limit stages. | |
| Jun 10, 2010 at 16:00 | history | answered | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 2.5 |