Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    If propositions are correlated with the classes they ment... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Simple Type Theory (STT) gives rise to Russell's Appendix B paradox when supplemented with the principle that propositions differing by a constituent are distinct propositions and a correlation of propositions with classes they mention.

    If propositions are correlated with the classes they mention, then diagonalization is possible.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    If two propositions differ by a constituent, then they are different proposition...Let W be the class of propositions not in the classes with which they are correl...Simple Type Theory (STT) gives rise to Russell's Appendix B paradox when supplem...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would relativize to both or...79%A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would relativize to both or...78%A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would be expected to relati...78%Let W be the class of propositions not in the classes with which they ...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: church
    View source passageHide passage
    In a later paper, Church turns his attention to a paradox that Russell formulates in Appendix B of Principles of Mathematics (1903). Once again, Church’s aim is first to show how this contradiction arises in STT, and then to appeal to RTT as a means of solving the problem. This time, however, STT is not supplemented directly by any overt semantic principles concerning denotation or predication, but only by a predicate for identity of propositions and axioms supporting Russell’s view as of 1903,

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective