[FOM] intuitionism and the liar paradox

[Nik Weaver]

Almost a year ago I posted a paper in which I claimed to have resolved
the liar paradox.  Since the reaction suggested that readers found it
hard to understand, I've written what I hope is a more accessible version,
with technicalities omitted but the essential philosophical point laid out
in more detail.  It's called "Intuitionism and the liar paradox" and is
available at

http://math.wustl.edu/~nweaver/conceptualism.html

(The earlier paper, "Constructive truth and circularity" is there as well.)

The most common criticism of the earlier paper was that the circularity I
identify in ex falso and "A is true implies A" is no worse than similar,
or possibly identical, circularities in other deduction rules.  I don't
think that's right, and I tried to lay out why not very clearly in the new
paper.

Nik Weaver
Math Dept.
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63103 USA
nweaver at math.wustl.edu