FOM: Infinite interpretation of "Liar", "Barber", etc.

[Jeffrey Ketland]

This idea seems to me like the usual one that the liar doesn't get a stable
truth value under what's called "the revision operator".
If I've interpreted you right, then some literature for "rule of revision
semantics" is:

[1] Herzberger, H 1982: "Notes on Naive Semantics", J.Phil.Log.
[2] Gupta, A. 1982: "Truth and Paradox", J.Phil.Log.

both reprinted in
[3] R.M. Martin (ed.) 1984, _Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox_.

I haven't read this one, but I think John Burgess gave a characterisation of
stable truths over |N in,
[4] Burgess, J 1986: "The Truth is Never Simple", JSL.

See also
[5] McGee, V. 1991: _Truth, Vagueness and Paradox_ (Chapter 6).

Full theory of revision operator (plus fixed points, etc.) is developed in,
[5] Gupta & Belnap 1993: _Revision Theory of Truth_ (MIT).

Best - Jeff

~~~~~~~~~~~ Jeffrey Ketland ~~~~~~~~~
Dept of Philosophy, University of Nottingham
Nottingham NG7 2RD United Kingdom
Tel: 0115 951 5843
Home: 0115 922 3978
E-mail: jeffrey.ketland at nottingham.ac.uk
Home: ketland at ketland.fsnet.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~