| dc.contributor.author | WEBER, ZACH | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2014-05-22T07:44:18Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2014-05-22T07:44:18Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | en_US |
| dc.identifier | 1755-0203 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Weber, Z. (2011). Reply to Bjordal. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(1), 109-113. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11343/33009 | |
| dc.description | © 2011 Association for Symbolic Logic. Online edition of the journal is available at http://journals.cambridge.org/RSL | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | In Bjørdal (2010), Bjørdal presents a paraconsistent set theory in which ∀x(x _= x) is a theorem. The author rightly claims that, while not trivializing (in the sense of proving everything), results like this are to be avoided. The set theory presented in Bjørdal (2010) is based on that of Weber (2010b), but with an introduced definition of identity—which is used, in effect, as a new axiom. With this added notion of identity, the non-self-identity of every object does in fact obtain; and so the set theory presented by Bjørdal is inadequate....... | en_US |
| dc.language | eng | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Cambridge University Press | en_US |
| dc.title | Reply to Bjordal | en_US |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en_US |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1017/S1755020310000304 | |
| melbourne.peerreview | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
| melbourne.affiliation | The University of Melbourne | en_US |
| melbourne.affiliation.department | School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, Faculty of Arts | en_US |
| melbourne.publication.status | Published | en_US |
| melbourne.source.title | The Review of Symbolic Logic | en_US |
| melbourne.source.volume | 4 | en_US |
| melbourne.source.issue | 1 | en_US |
| melbourne.source.pages | 109-113 | en_US |
| melbourne.elementsid | NA | |
| melbourne.contributor.author | Weber, Zach | |
| melbourne.accessrights | Open Access | |
