Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:52:16.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

BUNDER’S PARADOX

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2019

MICHAEL CAIE*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 170 ST. GEORGE STREET TORONTO, ON M5R 2M8, CANADA E-mail:[email protected]

Abstract

Systems of illative logic are logical calculi formulated in the untyped λ-calculus supplemented with certain logical constants.1 In this short paper, I consider a paradox that arises in illative logic. I note two prima facie attractive ways of resolving the paradox. The first is well known to be consistent, and I briefly outline a now standard construction used by Scott and Aczel that establishes this. The second, however, has been thought to be inconsistent. I show that this isn’t so, by providing a nonempty class of models that establishes its consistency. I then provide an illative logic which is sound and complete for this class of models. I close by briefly noting some attractive features of the second resolution of this paradox.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aczel, P. (1980). Frege structures and the notions of proposition, truth and set. In Barwise, J., editor. The Kleene Symposium. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 3139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barendregt, H. (1984). The Lambda Calculus: Its Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bunder, M. (1970). A paradox in illative combinatory logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 11 (4), 467470.10.1305/ndjfl/1093894077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunder, M. (1976). The inconsistency of ${\cal F}_{21}^{\rm{*}}$.. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41(2), 467468.Google Scholar
Bunder, M. (1979). Scott’s models and illative combinatory logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 20(3), 609612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunder, M. & Meyer, R. (1978). On the inconsistency of systems similar to ${\cal F}_{21}^{\rm{*}}$.. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 43(1), 12.10.2307/2271943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, H. (1942a). The inconsistency of certain formal logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 7, 115117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, H. (1942b). The combinatory foundations of mathematical logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 7(2), 4964.10.2307/2266302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, H., Hindley, J. R., & Seldin, J. P. (1972). Combinatory Logic, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Czajka, Ł. (2013). Higher-order illative combinatory logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 73(3), 837872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czajka, Ł. (2015). Semantic Consistency Proofs for Systems of Illative Combinatory Logic. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Fitch, F. (1981). The consistency of system q. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 46(1), 6776.10.2307/2273258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. & Martin, R. (1984). A fixed point theorem for the weak kleene valuation scheme. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 13(2), 131135.10.1007/BF00453018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindley, J. R. & Seldin, J. P. (1986). Introduction to Combinators and λ-Calculus. London Mathematical Society Student Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hindley, J. R. & Seldin, J. P. (2008). Lambda-Calculus and Combinators: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. (1975). Outline of a theory of truth. The Journal of Philosophy, 72, 690716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. (1975). Combinators and classes. In Bohm, C, editor. Lambda-Calculus and Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 126.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1955). A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 5(2), 285309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar