Bibliography

Primary Sources: 1897–1945

The items occurring in this list mainly concern the primary literature on paradoxes in the period 1897–1945.

• Behmann., H. 1931, “Zu den Widersprüchen der Logik und der Mengenlehre”, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 40: 37–48, 1931.
• Bernstein, F. 1905a, “Die Theorie der reellen Zahlen”, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 14: 447–449.
• –––, 1905b. “Über die Reihe der transfiniten Ordnungszahlen”, Mathematische Annalen, 60: 187–193.
• –––, 1905c, “Zum Kontinuumproblem”, Mathematische Annalen, 60: 463–464.
• Bochvar, D. A., 1937, “On a three-valued logical calculus and its applications to the analysis of the paradoxes of the classical extended functional calculus”, in: History and Philosophy of Logic, vol.2, pp. 87–112, 1981 (English translation by M. Bergmann of the Russian original, in: Mathematicheski Sbornik, 4 (46): 287–308);
• Borel, E., Baire, R., Hadamard, J., Lebesgue, H., 1905, “Cinq lettres sur la théorie des ensembles”, Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France, 33: 261–273.
• Borel, E., 1908, “Les paradoxes de la théorie des ensembles”, Annales scientifique de l'École Normale Supérieure, 25: 443–448 (reprinted in: E. Borel, Leçons sur la théorie des functions, Paris: Gauthier Villars, 2^nd edition, 1914, 162–166).
• Brouwer, L.E.J. 1907, “Over die Grondslagen der Wiskunde”. Dissertation, Amsterdam (English translation in: L.E.J.Brouwer, Collected Works I, Amsterdam: North Holland 1975).
• Burali-Forti C., 1897, “Una questione sui numeri transfiniti”. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 11: 260, 154–164 (English translation in van Heijenoort 1967, 104–111).
• Cantor, G. 1962, Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts. (ed. E. Zermelo), Berlin–Hildesheim, Olms.
• Cantor, G. 1991, Briefe, Berlin–Hildesheim, Olms (eds. H. Meschkowski and W. Nilson).
• Carnap, R., 1934a, “Die Antinomien und die Unvollständigkeit der Mathematik”, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 41: 263–284.
• –––, 1934b, Die logische Syntax der Sprache, Berlin: Springer.
• Church, A., 1932, “A set of postulates for the foundation of logic” (1^st paper), Annals of Mathematics, 33: 346–366.
• –––, 1933, “A set of postulates for the foundation of logic” (2^nd paper), Annals of Mathematics, 34: 839–864.
• –––, 1934, “The Richard paradox”, American Mathematical Monthly, 41: 356–361
• Chwistek, L.1921, “Antinomje logiki formalnej. Przegląd Filozoficzny”, 24: 164–171, (English translation by Z. Jordan: “Antinomies of formal logic”, in: S. McCall, Polish Logic 1920–1939, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1967, 338–345).
• –––, 1922, “Über die Antinomien der Prinzipien der Mathematik”. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 14: 236–243.
• –––, 1933, “Die nominalistische Grundlegung der Mathematik”. Erkenntnis, 3: 367–388.
• Curry, H.B. 1930, “Grundlagen der kombinatorischen Logik”. American Journal of Mathematics, 52: 509–536, 739–834.
• –––, 1941, “The paradox of Kleene and Rosser”. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 41: 454–516.
• –––, 1942, “The inconsistency of certain formal logics”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 7: 115–117.
• Finsler, P., 1925, “Gibt es Widersprüche in der Mathematik?”, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 34: 143–155.
• –––, 1926a, “Formale Beweise und die Unentscheidbarkeit”. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 25: 676–682.
• –––, 1926b, “Über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre”. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 25: 683–713.
• Fitch, F.B., 1936, “A system of formal logic without an analogue to Curry W-operator”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1: 92–100..
• –––, 1942, “A basic logic”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 7: 105–114.
• Frege, G. 1903, Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. Begriffschriftlich Abgeleitet. Vol.II, Jena, (reprinted, Hildesheim: Olms, 1962).
• –––, 1976, Wissenschaftslicher Briefswechsel, Hamburg, F. Meiner.
• –––, 1984, Nachgelassene Schriften, Hamburg, F. Meiner.
• Gödel, K., 1931, “Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I ”, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38: 173–198.
• Grelling, K. and Nelson, L., 1908, “Bemerkungen zu den Paradoxien von Russell und Burali-Forti ”, Abhandlungen der Fries'chen Schule, 2: 301–334.
• Hessenberg, G., 1906, Grundbegriffe der Mengenlehre, Göttingen:Vandenhoek und Ruprecht (also in: Abhandlungen der Fries'chen Schule, Neue Reihe, 1: 479–706, 1906).
• Hilbert, D. and W. Ackermann, 1928, Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik, Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.
• Hilbert, D., 1904, “Über die Grundlagen der Logik und der Arithmetik”, Verhandlungen des Dritten Internationalen-Mathematiker Kongresses, Leipzig:Teubner, 174–185 (English transl. in van Heijenoort 1967, 129–138).
• Hilbert, D., 1918, Prinzipien der Mathematik. Vorlesung von D. Hilbert, Mathematisches Institut der Georg-August Universität Göttingen..
• Kleene, S. C. and J. B. Rosser, 1935, “The inconsistency of certain formal logics”, Annals of Mathematics, 36: 630–637
• König, J., 1905, “Über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre und das Kontinuumsproblem”, Mathematische Annalen, 61: 156–160.
• Levi, B., 1902, “Intorno alla teoria degli aggregati”, Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, Rendiconti, 2nd Series, 35: 863–868
• Levi, B., 1908, “Antinomie logiche?”, Annali di Matematica (terza serie), tomo 15: 188–216.
• Lewis, C. I. and C.H. Langford, 1932, Symbolic Logic, The Century Co., New York, (Reprinted Dover, New York, 1952).
• Mirimanoff, D., 1917a, “Les antinomies de Russell et de Burali-Forti et le problème fondamentale de la théorie des ensembles”, L'Enseignement Mathématique, 19: 37–52.
• –––, 1917b, “Remarques sur la théorie des ensembles et les antinomies cantoriennes I ”, L'Enseignement Mathématique, 19: 209–217.
• –––, 1920, “Remarques sur la théorie des ensembles et les antinomies cantoriennes II ”, L'Enseignement Mathématique, 21: 29–52.
• Peano, G., 1906, Additione, Revista de Matematica, 8:143–157, 1902–1906, in: G. Peano, Opere Scelte, vol.I , Roma:Cremonese, 1957, 344–358.
• Poincaré, H., 1905, “Les mathématiques et la logique”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 13: 815–835.
• –––, 1906a, “Les mathématiques et la logique”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 14: 17–34
• –––, 1906b, “Les mathématiques et la logique”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 14: 294–317.
• –––, 1909a, “La logique de l'infini”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 7: 461–482
• –––, 1909b, “Réflexions sur les deux notes precedents”, Acta Mathematica, 32: 195–200.
• –––, 1910, “Über transfiniten Zahlen”, in Sechs Vorträge über ausgewählte Gegenstände der reinen Mathematik und Physik, Leipzig-Berlin, 43–48.
• –––, 1912, “La logique de l'infini”, Scientia, 12: 1–11.
• Quine, W. O., 1937, “New foundations for mathematical logic”, American Mathematical Monthly, 44: 70–80
• Ramsey, F. P., 1926, “The foundations of mathematics”, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society (Series 2), 25: 338–384.
• –––, 1931, The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Richard, J, 1905, “Les principes des mathématique et le problème des ensembles”, Revue Générale des Sciences Pures et Appliquées, 16:541 (also in: Acta Mathematica, 30: 295–296, 1906; English transl. in van Heijenoort 1967, 142–144).
• Rosser, J. B., 1939, “An informal exposition of proofs of Gödel's and Church's theorem”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 4: 53–60.
• Russell, B., 1903, The Principles of Mathematics, vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1907, “On some difficulties in the theory of transfinite numbers and order types”, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society (2nd series), 4: 29–53
• –––, 1906, “Les paradoxes de la logique”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 14: 627–650
• –––, 1908, “Mathematical Logic as Based on the Theory of Types”, American Journal of Mathematics, 30: 222–262. Reprinted in Russell, B., Logic and Knowledge, London: Allen and Unwin, 1956, 59–102, and in van Heijenoort 1967, 152–182.
• Schönflies, A., 1906, “Über die logischen Paradoxien der Mengenlehre”, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 15: 19–25.
• Tarski, A., 1931, “Sur les ensembles définissables de nombres réels I”, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 17: 210–239.
• –––, 1933, “The concept of truth in the languages of the deductive sciences” (Polish), Prace Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, Wydzial III Nauk Matematyczno-Fizyczych 34, Warsaw; reprinted in Zygmunt, J. ed. 1995, Alfred Tarski, Pisma Logiczno-Filozoficzne, 1 Prawda, Warsaw : Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 13–172.
• –––, 1935, “Der Wahrheitsbegriff in der formalisierten Sprachen”, Studia Philosophica, 1: 261–405 (extended German translation of Tarski 1933; English translation in A. Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, 2d ed., Indianapolis: Hackett 1983, 152–278)
• van Heijenoort, 1967, From Frege to Gödel. A source book in mathematical logic 1879–1931, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
• von Neumann, J., 1925, “Eine Axiomatisierung der Mengenlehre”, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 154: 219–240 (Corrections in vol.155, 1926, p. 128).
• Weyl, H., 1910, “Über die Definitionen der mathematischen Grundbegriffe”, Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Blätter, 7: 93–95; 109–113.
• –––, 1918, Das Kontinuum, Leipzig: Veit (English Translation, New York: Dover 1994).
• Whitehead, A. N. and B. Russell (1910, 1912, 1913) Principia Mathematica, 3 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Second edition, 1925 (Vol. 1), 1927 (Vols 2, 3).
• –––, 1911, “Über die Stellung der Definition in der Axiomatik”, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 20: 222–255.
• Zermelo, E., 1908, “Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre I”, Mathematische Annalen, 65: 261–281.
• Zygmunt, J. (Editor). 1995, Alfred Tarski, Pisma Logiczno-Filozoficzne, 1 Prawda, Warsaw : Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Recent Sources

This list contains (i) items cited in the final section; (ii) items related to developments of paradoxes after the Second World War; (iii) critical historical papers.

• Aczel, P., 1980, “Frege structures and the notion of proposition, truth and set”, The Kleene Symposium, Jon Barwise et al. (editors), Amsterdam: North-Holland, 31–59.
• –––, 1988, “Non-Well-Founded Sets”, Stanford: CSLI, 1988.
• Anderson, C.A. and Zelëny, M. (editors), 2001, Logic, Meaning and Computation, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Barendregt, H., 1984, The Lambda Calculus. Its Syntax and Semantics, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 103, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J., 1984. The Liar, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Barwise J. and L. Moss, 1996, Vicious Circles. On the Mathematics of Non-Wellfounded Phenomena, Stanford: CSLI, 1996.
• Beall, J.C. (editor), 2003, Liars and Heaps, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 2007, Revenge of the Liar. New Essays on the Paradox, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bernardi, C. 2001, Fixed points and unfounded chains, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 109: 163–178.
• Betti, A., 2004, “Lesniewski's early Liar, Tarski and natural language”, Annals of pure and applied logic, 127: 267–287
• Birkhoff, G., 1967, Lattice Theory, Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 3^rd edition.
• Boolos G. 1989, “A new proof of the Gödel incompleteness theorem”, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 36: 388–390
• –––, 1993, The logic of provability, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bruni, R., 2009 “A note on theories for quasi-inductive definitions”, Review of Symbolic Logic, 2: 684–699
• Burgess, A.G. and Burgess, J.P. 2011, Truth, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Burgess, J. 2005, Fixing Frege, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cantini A. and P. Minari, 1999, Uniform inseparability in explicit mathematics, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 64: 313–326.
• Cantini, A., 2003, “The undecidability of Grišin's set theory”, Studia Logica, 74: 345–368.
• –––, 2004, “On a Russellian paradox about propositions and truth”, in: G. Link 2004, 259–284.
• Chaitin, G., 1995, “The Berry paradox”, Complexity, 1: 26–30.
• Church, A., 1976,“A Comparison of Russell's Resolution of the Semantical Antinomies with that of Tarski ”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41: 747–760.
• Coquand, T., 1986, “An analysis of Girard's paradox,” Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 227–236.
• –––, 1994, “A new paradox in type theory,” in D.Prawitz, B.Skyrms, D.Westerstahl (Editors), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IX, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 134, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 555–570.
• Feferman, S., 1964, “Systems of predicative analysis I ”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 29: 1–30.
• –––, 1979, “Constructive theories of functions and classes”, in M.Boffa and D.van Dalen (Editors), Logic Colloquium ‘78, Amsterdam: North Holland, 159–224.
• –––, 1984,“Towards Useful Type-free Theories. I.” Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49: 75–111.
• –––, 1991,“Reflecting on Incompleteness”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 56: 1–49.
• –––, 2008,“Axioms for Determinatess and Truth”, Review of Symbolic Logic , 1: 204–217.
• Field, H., 2003, “A revenge-immune solution to the semantic paradoxes.”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32: 139–177.
• –––, 2008, Saving Truth from Paradox , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Flagg, R. and J. Myhill, 1987, “Implications and analysis in classical Frege structures”. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 34: 33–85.
• Forti, M. and F. Honsell, 1983, “Set theory with free construction principles”, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Scienze, Serie IV, 10: 493–522.
• Forti, M. and R. Hinnion, 1989, “The consistency problem for positive comprehension principles”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 54: 1401–1418.
• Friedman, H. and M. Sheard, 1987, “An Axiomatic Approach to Self-Referential Truth”, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 33: 1–21.
• Fujimoto, K, 2010, “Relative truth and definability of axiomatic truth theories”, Bull. Symbolic Logic 16: 33: 305–344.
• Gaifman, H., 1988. “Operational pointer semantics: Solution to self-referential puzzles I ”, in Vardi, M. (Editors), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 43–59.
• Garciadiego, A., 1992, Bertrand Russell and the Origins of Set-theoretic “Paradoxes”, Basel: Birkhäuser.
• Geach, P., 1955, “On Insolubilia”, Analysis, 15:71–72.
• Girard, J. Y., 1998, “Light linear logic”, Information and Computation, 143: 175–204.
• Grišin, V. N., 1981, “Predicate and set theoretic calculi based on logic without contraction rules” (Russian). Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR Seriya Matematicheskaya, 45(1): 47–68, (English translation in: Math. USSR Izv., 1982, 18(1): 41–59).
• Grue, K., 2001,“ Lambda calculus as a foundation of mathematics,”, in: Anderson, C.A. and Zelëny, M. (editors), 287 –311.
• Gupta, A. and N. Belnap, 1993, The Revision Theory of Truth, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Hajek,P., 2005 ,“On the arithmetic in the Cantor-Łukasiewicz set theory”, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 44: 763–782
• Hajek, P., Paris, J. and Shepherdson, J., 2000 ,“The liar paradox and fuzzy logic”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 65: 339–346
• Halbach, V., 2011, Axiomatic Theories of Truth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Halbach, V., Leitgeb, H. and P.Welch 2003, “Possible world semantics for modal notions conceived as predicates”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32: 179–223.
• Halbach, V. and Welch, P., 2009, “Necessities and necessary truths: a prolegomenon to the use of modal notions in the analysis of the intensional notions”, Mind, 118: 71–100.
• Hinnion, R. and Libert, t., 2003, “Positive abstraction and extensionality ”, Journal of Symbolic Logic , 68: 828–836.
• Holmes, M.R., 2001,“Tarski's Theorem and NFU, ”in: Anderson et al. 2001, pp. 469–478.
• Horsten,L., 2011, The Tarskian Turn. Deflationism and Axiomatic Truth, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT.
• Irvine, A., 2009, “Bertrand Russell's Logic, ”in: Handbook of the History of Logic, volume 5, Logic from Russsell to Church, Dov M.Gabbay and John Wood (editors), Amsterdam: Elsevier and North-Holland, 1–28.
• Jäger, G., 1997, “Power types in explicit mathematics”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 62: 1142–1146.
• Kahle, R., 2004, “David Hilbert über Paradoxien”, Preprint Number 06-17, Departamento de Matemática, Universidade de Coimbra, 2006, 1–42.
• Kahle, R. and V. Peckhaus, 2002, “Hilbert's paradox”, Historia Mathematica, 29: 127–155.
• Kaplan, D. and R. Montague, 1960, “A paradox regained”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 1: 79–90.
• Kikuchi, M., 1994, “ A note on Boolos' proof of the incompleteness theorem,”, Math. Logic Quart. , 40: 528–532.
• Kreisel, G. 1960, “La prédicativité”, Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France, 88: 371–391.
• Kripke, S., 1975, “Outline of a Theory of Truth”, Journal of Philosophy, 72: 690–716.
• Kritchman, S. and Raz, R., 2011, “ The surprise examination paradox and the second incompleteness theorem”, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 57: 1454–1458.
• Lawvere, F. W., 1969, “Diagonal arguments and Cartesian closed categories”, in P. Hilton (editor), Category Theory, Homology Theory and their Applications, II, vol. 92, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 134–145, Berlin-Heidelberg, Springer.
• Leigh, G. and Rathjen,M., 2010, “An ordinal analysis for theories of self-referential truth”, Archive for Mathematical Logic 49: 213–247.
• Leitgeb, H., 2007, “ What theories of truth should be like (but cannot be)”, Blackwell Philosophy Compass, 2: 276–290.
• –––, 2008, “ On the probabilistic convention T”, The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1: 218–224.
• Libert, T. and Esser, O., 2005, “On topological set theory”, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 51: 263–273.
• Link, G. (ed.), 2004, One Hundred Years of Russell's Paradox, Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Linsky, B., 2004, “Leon Chwistek on the no-classes theory”, History and Philosophy of Logic, 25: 53–71.
• Löb, M. H., 1955, “Solution of a problem of Leon Henkin”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 20: 115–118.
• Malitz, R.J., 1976, Set Theory in which the axiom of foundation fails, Ph.D. thesis, Philosophy Department, University of California, Los Angeles.
• Mancosu, P., 2003, “The Russellian Influence on Hilbert and his School”, Synthèse, 137: 59–101.
• Mancosu, P., Zach, R., Badesa, C., 2004, “The Development of Mathematical Logic from Russell to Tarski: 1900–1935”, in, L. Haaparanta, ed., The History of Modern Logic, Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear, pp. 1–187.
• Martin, R. L., 1984, Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
• Martin-Löf, P., 1971, A Theory of Types, (preprint), Stockholm University.
• –––, 1998, “An intuitionistic theory of types,” in :Twenty-five years of constructive type theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 127–172.
• Martino, E., 2001,“, Russellian type theories and semantical paradoxes,” in: Anderson et al. 2001, pp. 491 –506.
• McGee, V., 1991, Truth, Vagueness, and Paradox: An Essay on the Logic of Truth, Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.
• Moh Shaw-Kwei, 1954, “Logical Paradoxes for Many-Valued Systems”. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 19: 37–39.
• Montague, R., 1963, “Syntactical treatment of modality, with corollaries on reflection principles and finite axiomatizability”, Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16: 153–167
• Moore, G. H., 1995, “The origin of Russell's paradox: Russell, Couturat and the antinomy of infinite number”, in J. Hintikka, From Dedekind to Gödel. Essays on the development of the foundation of mathematics, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 215–239.
• Moore, G. H. and Garciadiego, A., 1981, “Burali-Forti's paradox: a reappraisal of its origins”, Historia Mathematica, 8: 319–350.
• Myhill, J., 1950, “A system which can define its own truth”, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 37: 190–92.
• Pelham, J. and A.Urquhart, 1994, “Russellian propositions”, in: D.Prawitz, B.Skyrms, and D.Westerstahl (editors), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IX, 307–326, Amsterdam, Elsevier.
• Reinhardt, W. N., 1986, “Some Remarks on Extending and Interpreting Theories with a Partial Predicate for Truth”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 15: 219–51.
• Schütte, K., 1960, Beweistheorie, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg,
• Scott, D., 1975, “Combinators and classes”, λ-calculus and computer science, C. Böhm (ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin: Springer, 1–26.
• –––, 1972, “Continuous lattices”, in: W.Lawvere, ed., Toposes, Algebraic Geometry and Logic, Berlin-Heidelberg, vol.274, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 97–136.
• Sheard, M., 1994, “A Guide to truth Predicates in the Modern Era”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 59: 1032–54.
• Shen-Yuting, 1953, “The paradox of the class of all grounded sets”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 18: 114.
• Simmons, K., 1993. Universality and the Liar, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Specker, E., 1962, “Typical ambiguity”, in E. Nagel, P.Suppes, and A.Tarski, eds., Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, pp. 116–123, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Terui, K., 2004, “Light Affine Set Theory: a naïve set theory of polynomial time”, Studia Logica, 77: 9–40.
• Thomason, R., 1980, “A note of syntactical treatments of modality”, Synthèse, 44: 391–395.
• Visser, A., 1989, “Semantics and the liar paradox,” Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. IV, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 617–706.
• Welch, P., 2001, “On Gupta-Belnap revision theories of truth, Kripkean fixed points and the next stable”, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 7: 345–360.
• –––, 2008, “Ultimate truth vis-a-vis, Stable Truth ”, The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1: 126–142.
• –––, 2009, “Games for truth”, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 15:410–427.
• Weydert, E., 1988, How to approximate the naive comprehension scheme inside classical logic, Dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn, 1988; published in Bonner Mathematische Schriften, 194. Universität Bonn, Mathematisches Institut, Bonn, 1989.
• Wolenski, J., 1995, “On Tarski's background”, In Hintikka, J. (Editors.), From Dedekind to Gödel, Essays on the development of the foundation of mathematics, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 331–341.
• Yablo, Stephen, 1993, “Paradox without self-reference,” Analysis, 53: 251–252.

Academic Tools

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society.
	Look up this entry topic at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links to its database.