{"title":"对罗素反二元论的思考","authors":"Paola Cattabriga","doi":"arxiv-2409.05903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We present Russell's antinomy using three distinct deductive systems, which\nare then compared to deepen the logical deductions that lead to the\ncontradiction. Some inferential paths are then presented, alternative to the\ncommonly accepted one, that allow for the formal assertion of the antinomy\nwithout deriving the contradiction, thus preserving the coherence of the\nsystem. In light of this, the purpose of this article is to propose a review of\nthe consequences of asserting Russell's antinomy and, by extension, the\nwidespread belief that any attempt to resolve a paradox is doomed to failure.","PeriodicalId":501306,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - MATH - Logic","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflections on Russell's antinomy\",\"authors\":\"Paola Cattabriga\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2409.05903\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We present Russell's antinomy using three distinct deductive systems, which\\nare then compared to deepen the logical deductions that lead to the\\ncontradiction. Some inferential paths are then presented, alternative to the\\ncommonly accepted one, that allow for the formal assertion of the antinomy\\nwithout deriving the contradiction, thus preserving the coherence of the\\nsystem. In light of this, the purpose of this article is to propose a review of\\nthe consequences of asserting Russell's antinomy and, by extension, the\\nwidespread belief that any attempt to resolve a paradox is doomed to failure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - MATH - Logic\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - MATH - Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.05903\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - MATH - Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.05903","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
We present Russell's antinomy using three distinct deductive systems, which
are then compared to deepen the logical deductions that lead to the
contradiction. Some inferential paths are then presented, alternative to the
commonly accepted one, that allow for the formal assertion of the antinomy
without deriving the contradiction, thus preserving the coherence of the
system. In light of this, the purpose of this article is to propose a review of
the consequences of asserting Russell's antinomy and, by extension, the
widespread belief that any attempt to resolve a paradox is doomed to failure.