YABLO WITHOUT GODEL
... the proof in the previous section does not give us a new paradox. It’s only ‘intensionally’ different from the simple Russell-liar paradox, because the proof is different. But the Yablo argument in the previous section does not establish a new inconsistency. The inconsistency of vs with ser and tra ...
... the proof in the previous section does not give us a new paradox. It’s only ‘intensionally’ different from the simple Russell-liar paradox, because the proof is different. But the Yablo argument in the previous section does not establish a new inconsistency. The inconsistency of vs with ser and tra ...
The Logic of Atomic Sentences
... What it takes for an argument to be good (correct): How to demonstrate that an inference is valid: a proof A proof breaks a non-obvious inference down into a series of trivial, obvious steps which lead you from the premises to the conclusion These steps are based on facts about the meaning of the te ...
... What it takes for an argument to be good (correct): How to demonstrate that an inference is valid: a proof A proof breaks a non-obvious inference down into a series of trivial, obvious steps which lead you from the premises to the conclusion These steps are based on facts about the meaning of the te ...
Complete Sequent Calculi for Induction and Infinite Descent
... • This least prefixed point can be approached via a sequence ...
... • This least prefixed point can be approached via a sequence ...
Proof Nets Sequentialisation In Multiplicative Linear Logic
... Given a sequent calculus proof π of MLL (or MLL + Mix), we can associate to it a proof structure π ∗ , by induction on the height h of π, as follows. If h = 1, then the last rule of π is an axiom with conclusions X, X ⊥ ; π ∗ is an axiom link with conclusions X, X ⊥ . Otherwise: – If the last rule ...
... Given a sequent calculus proof π of MLL (or MLL + Mix), we can associate to it a proof structure π ∗ , by induction on the height h of π, as follows. If h = 1, then the last rule of π is an axiom with conclusions X, X ⊥ ; π ∗ is an axiom link with conclusions X, X ⊥ . Otherwise: – If the last rule ...
CHAPTER 10 Mathematical Induction
... This section describes a useful variation on induction. Occasionally it happens in induction proofs that it is difficult to show that S k forces S k+1 to be true. Instead you may find that you need to use the fact that some “lower” statements S m (with m < k) force S k+1 to be true. For these situat ...
... This section describes a useful variation on induction. Occasionally it happens in induction proofs that it is difficult to show that S k forces S k+1 to be true. Instead you may find that you need to use the fact that some “lower” statements S m (with m < k) force S k+1 to be true. For these situat ...
