Seungrak Choi

In this dissertation, we shall investigate whether Tennant's criterion for paradoxicality(TCP) can be a correct criterion for genuine paradoxes and whether the requirement of a normal derivation(RND) can be a proof-theoretic solution to the paradoxes. Tennant’s criterion has two types of counterexamples. The one is a case which raises the problem of overgeneration that TCP makes a paradoxical derivation non-paradoxical. The other is one which generates the problem of undergeneration that TCP renders a non-paradoxical derivation paradoxical. Chapter 2 deals with the problem of undergeneration and Chapter 3 concerns the problem of overgeneration. Chapter 2 discusses that Tenant’s diagnosis of the counterexample which applies CR−rule and causes the undergeneration problem is not correct and presents a solution to the problem of undergeneration. Chapter 3 argues that Tennant’s diagnosis of the counterexample raising the overgeneration problem is wrong and provides a solution to the problem. Finally, Chapter 4 addresses what should be explicated in order for RND to be a proof-theoretic solution to the paradoxes.

In the present paper, we prove the normalization theorem and the consistency of the first-order classical logic with disjunctive syllogism. First, we propose the natural deduction system SCD for classical propositional logic having rules for conjunction, implication, negation, and disjunction. The rules for disjunctive syllogism are regarded as the rules for disjunction. After we prove the normalization theorem and the consistency of SCD, we extend SCD to the system SPCD for the first-order classical logic with disjunctive syllogism. It can be shown that SPCD is conservative extension to SCD. Then, the normalization theorem and the consistency of SPCD are given.

Dialetheism is the view that there exists a true contradiction. This paper ventures to suggest that Priest’s argument for Dialetheism from Gödel’s theorem is unconvincing as the lesson of Gödel’s proof (or Rosser’s proof) is that any sufficiently strong theories of arithmetic cannot be both complete and consistent. In addition, a contradiction is derivable in Priest’s inconsistent and complete arithmetic. An alternative argument for Dialetheism is given by applying Gödel sentence to the inconsistent and complete theory of arithmetic. We argue, however, that the alternative argument raises a circularity problem. In sum, Gödel’s and its related theorem merely show the relation between a complete and a consistent theory. A contradiction derived by the application of Gödel sentence has the value of true sentences, i.e. the both-value, only under the inconsistent models for arithmetic. Without having the assumption of inconsistency or completeness, a true contradiction is not derivable from the application of Gödel sentence. Hence, Gödel’s and its related theorem never can be a ground for Dialetheism.

It is often said that in a purely formal perspective, intuitionistic logic has no obvious advantage to deal with the liar-type paradoxes. In this paper, we will argue that the standard intuitionistic natural deduction systems are vulnerable to the liar-type paradoxes in the sense that the acceptance of the liar-type sentences results in inference to absurdity (⊥). The result shows that the restriction of the Double Negation Elimination (DNE) fails to block the inference to ⊥. It is, however, not the problem of the intuitionistic approaches to the liar-type paradoxes but the lack of expressive power of the standard intuitionistic natural deduction system. We introduce a meta-level negation for a given system and a meta-level absurdity, ⋏, to the intuitionistic system. We shall show that in the system, the inference to ⊥ is not given without the assumption that the system is complete. Moreover, we consider the Double Meta-Level Negation Elimination rules (DMNE) which implicitly assume the completeness of the system. Then, the restriction of DMNE can rule out the inference to ⊥.

It is often said that a correct logical system should have no counterexample to its logical rules and the system must be revised if its rules have a counterexample. If a logical system (or theory) has a counterexample to its logical rules, do we have to revise the system? In this paper, focussing on the role of counterexamples to logical rules, we deal with the question. We investigate two mutually exclusive theories of arithmetic - intuitionistic and paraconsistent theories. The paraconsistent theory provides a (strong) counterexample to Ex Contradiction Quodlibet (ECQ). On the other hand, the intuitionistic theory gives a (weak) counterexample to the Double Negation Elimination (DNE) of the paraconsistent theory. If any counterexample undermines the legitimate use of logical rules, both theories must be revised. After we investigate a paraconsistent counterexample to ECQ and the intuitionist’s answer against it, we arrive at the unwelcome conclusion that ECQ has both a justification and a counterexample. Moreover, we argue that if a logical rule were abolished whenever it has a counterexample, a promising conclusion would be logical nihilism which is the view that there is no valid logical inference, and so a correct logical system does not exist. Provided that the logical revisionist is not a logical nihilist, we claim that not every counterexample is the ground for logical revision. While logical rules of a given system have a justification, the existence of a counterexample loses its role for logical revision unless the rules and the counterexample share the same structure.

The present paper focuses on Graham Priest’s claim that even primitive recursive relations may be inconsistent. Although he carefully presented his claim using the expression “may be,” Priest made a definite claim that even numerical equations can be inconsistent. His argument relies heavily on the fact that there is an inconsistent model for arithmetic. After summarizing Priest’s argument for the inconsistent primitive recursive relation, I first discuss the fact that his argument has a weak foundation to explain that the existence of a model for some relations does not guarantee that they are primitive recursive. Moreover, since his identity relation is a combination of a standard identity and a congruence relation, it does not simply represent the standard identity function. Then, I argue that his identity relation cannot be both inconsistent and primitive recursive. Furthermore, I extend the argument to the general case that there is no inconsistent primitive recursive relation. These arguments show that the standard notions of “function” and “primitive recursive function” do not fit Priest’s inconsistent model. New definitions are necessary to show the existence of a dialetheic primitive recursive relation.

In his paper, “On paradox without self-reference”, Neil Tennant proposed the conjecture for self-referential paradoxes that any derivation formalizing self-referential paradoxes only generates a looping reduction sequence. According to him, the derivation of the Liar paradox in natural deduction initiates a looping reduction sequence and the derivation of the Yablo's paradox generates a spiral reduction. The present paper proposes the counterexample to Tennant's conjecture for self-referential paradoxes. We shall show that there is a derivation of the Liar paradox which generates a spiraling reduction procedure. Since the Liar paradox is a self-referential paradox, the result is a counterexample to his conjecture. Tennant has believed that classical reductio has no essential role to formalize paradoxes. As our counterexample applies the rule of classical reductio, he may reject the counterexample. In this sense, it will be briefly argued that classical reductio and his rules for the liar sentence share some inferential role. If classical reductio should not be used in paradoxical reasoning, neither should be his rules for the liar sentence.

Dag Prawitz (1971) put forward the idea that an admissible reduction process does not affect the identity of proofs represented by derivations in natural deduction. The idea relies on his conjecture that two derivations represent the same proof if and only if they are equivalent in the sense that they are reflexive, transitive and symmetric closure of the immediate reducibility relation. Schroeder-Heister and Tranchini (2017) accept Prawitz’s conjecture and propose the triviality test as the criterion for admissible reductions. In the present paper, we will consider two main troubles of the triviality test. The first is the obscurity of a method of evaluating admissible reductions. The second is the circularity problem that the triviality test already assumes the set of admissible reduction procedures. For the solution of the problems, we will propose the spoiler test which immunes the problems of the triviality test and has the role of the criterion for admissible reductions. At last, we shall cover a plausible problem of the spoiler test that can be caused by Crabbé’s case.