The Revenge of Fitch?s Knowability Paradox for Typing Approach and the Alleged Self-Refutation of Ramified Type Theory

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14210%2F13%3A00069409" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14210/13:00069409 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The Revenge of Fitch?s Knowability Paradox for Typing Approach and the Alleged Self-Refutation of Ramified Type Theory

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Russellian typing knowledge is capable to resolve the famous Fitch's knowability paradox and it is immune to the recently raised criticism. But there is a special form of the criticism proposing a revenge problem, which is addressed in this talk. Revengeforms of Fitch's paradox were proposed by Williamson, Hart and also Carrara with Fassio. The basic idea employs quantification over type levels, as suggested already by Gödel in his criticism of ramified theory of types. From the viewpoint of a type theorist, however, the formalism used by the critics is ambivalent. I recover altogether six possible readings of the revenge form of the paradox. It is then evident that the revenge arguments go through only when they directly violate typing rules. In other words, the approach is immune to the criticism.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The Revenge of Fitch?s Knowability Paradox for Typing Approach and the Alleged Self-Refutation of Ramified Type Theory

Popis výsledku anglicky

Russellian typing knowledge is capable to resolve the famous Fitch's knowability paradox and it is immune to the recently raised criticism. But there is a special form of the criticism proposing a revenge problem, which is addressed in this talk. Revengeforms of Fitch's paradox were proposed by Williamson, Hart and also Carrara with Fassio. The basic idea employs quantification over type levels, as suggested already by Gödel in his criticism of ramified theory of types. From the viewpoint of a type theorist, however, the formalism used by the critics is ambivalent. I recover altogether six possible readings of the revenge form of the paradox. It is then evident that the revenge arguments go through only when they directly violate typing rules. In other words, the approach is immune to the criticism.

Druh

O - Ostatní výsledky

CEP obor

AA - Filosofie a náboženství

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2013

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů