Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWEBER, ZACHen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-22T07:44:18Z
dc.date.available2014-05-22T07:44:18Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier1755-0203
dc.identifier.citationWeber, Z. (2011). Reply to Bjordal. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(1), 109-113.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/33009
dc.description© 2011 Association for Symbolic Logic. Online edition of the journal is available at http://journals.cambridge.org/RSLen_US
dc.description.abstractIn 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.languageengen_US
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen_US
dc.titleReply to Bjordalen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S1755020310000304
melbourne.peerreviewPeer Revieweden_US
melbourne.affiliationThe University of Melbourneen_US
melbourne.affiliation.departmentSchool of Historical and Philosophical Studies, Faculty of Artsen_US
melbourne.publication.statusPublisheden_US
melbourne.source.titleThe Review of Symbolic Logicen_US
melbourne.source.volume4en_US
melbourne.source.issue1en_US
melbourne.source.pages109-113en_US
melbourne.elementsidNA
melbourne.contributor.authorWeber, Zach
melbourne.accessrightsOpen Access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record