Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-26T06:53:17.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NOTE ON THE CUT-ELIMINATION PROOF IN “TRUTH WITHOUT CONTRA(DI)CTION”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2019

ANDREAS FJELLSTAD
ANDREAS FJELLSTAD*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Bergen
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN PO BOX 7805, 5020 BERGEN NORWAY E-mail: andreas.fjellstad@uib.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This note shows that the permutation instructions presented by Zardini (2011) for eliminating cuts on universally quantified formulas in the sequent calculus for the noncontractive theory of truth IKTω are inadequate. To that purpose the note presents a derivation in the sequent calculus for IKTω ending with an application of cut on a universally quantified formula which the permutation instructions cannot deal with. The counterexample is of the kind that leaves open the question whether cut can be shown to be eliminable in the sequent calculus for IKTω with an alternative strategy.

Keywords

03F0503F52noncontractive theory of truthcut-eliminationsequent calculusinfinitary sequents

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 882 - 886
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Da Ré, B. & Rosenblatt, L. (2018). Contraction, infinitary quantifiers, and omega paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47 (4), 611–629.10.1007/s10992-017-9441-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fjellstad, A. (2018). Infinitary contraction-free revenge. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 7(3), 179–189.Google Scholar
Gentzen, G. (1934). Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen i, ii. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39, 176–210, 405–431.10.1007/BF01201353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, U. (2000). Logic without contraction as based on inclusion and unrestricted abstraction. Studia Logica, 64(3), 365–403.10.1023/A:1005293713265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zardini, E. (2011). Truth without contra(di)ction. Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(4), 498–535.10.1017/S1755020311000177CrossRefGoogle Scholar