[FOM] FOM Digest, Vol 124, Issue 17.Librationist Closures of the Paradoxes

[Frode Bjørdal]

Librationism, which I now give the name £ (libra), is not based upon a
formal or logical system. So a fortiori, £ is not based upon any
paraconsistent logic. All theses of classical logic are theses of £, and no
thesis of £ is an anti-thesis of classical logic. £ suffices for
mathematics beyond predicativity, and accounts for paradoxes in a manner
distinct from that of other approaches in the literature.


2013/4/26 Jaykov Foukzon <jaykovfoukzon at list.ru>

>  Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:54:32 +0200 Frode Bj?rdal wrote:
> >Some who have followed my earlier postings on librationism as an
> >alternative foundation may find interest in that my paper *Librationist
> >Closures of the Paradoxes* in *Logic and Logical Philosophy* Vol. 21
> >(2012), 323-361, is now made available by the journal by the following
> link:
>
> http://www.logika.umk.pl/llp/214/2-214c.pdf
>
> Well. But librationist Closures of the Paradoxes based on paraconsistent
> logic. What principal advantages are provided in comparison with the canonical
> da'Costa approach?
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
>
>


-- 


Frode Bjørdal
Professor i filosofi
IFIKK, Universitetet i Oslowww.hf.uio.no/ifikk/personer/vit/fbjordal/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20130429/96f383db/attachment.html>