Published 2018-03-19
Keywords
- Paradoja de Yablo,
- Lenguajes de primer orden,
- Circularidad,
- Trivialidad,
- Punto fijo
- Yablo Paradox,
- First-order languages,
- Circularity,
- Triviality,
- Fixed point
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Abstract
The Yablo Paradox’ main interest lies on its prima facie non-circular character, which many have doubted, specially when formulated in an extension of the language of firstorder arithmetic. Particularly, Priest (1997) and Cook (2006, forthcoming) provided contentious arguments in favor of circularity. My aims in this note are (i) to show that the notion of circularity involved in the debate so far is defective, (ii) to provide a new sound and useful partial notion of circularity and (iii) to show there is a non-circular formulation of the list in an extension of the language of first-order arithmetic according to the new notion.
References
- Cook, R. (2006), “There are non-circular paradoxes (but Yablos’ isn’t one of them)”, The Monist, 89, pp. 118-149.
- Cook, R. (forthcoming), The Yablo Paradox: An Essay on Circularity, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Leitgeb, H. (2002), “What is a self-referential sentence? Critical remarks on the alleged (non-)circularity of Yablo’s paradox”, Logique et Analyse, 177-178, pp. 3-14.
- Picollo, L. (2012), “Yablo’s paradox in second-order languages: consistency and unsatisfiabilility”, Studia Logica. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11225-012-9399-6- Springer Netherlands- 2012-10-P 1-17
- Priest, G. (1997), “Yablo’s Paradox”, Analysis, 57, pp. 236-242.