References
Anderson, A. R., & Belnap, N. D. (1975). Entailment: The logic of relevance and necessity (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Arruda, A. I. (1979). The Russell Paradox in the systems NFn. In A. Arruda, N. da Costa, & A. Sette (Eds.), Proceedings of the third Brazilian conference on mathematical logic (pp. 1–12). Campinas: Sociedade Brasileira de Logica.
Arruda, A. I. (1989). Aspects of the historical development of paraconsistent logic. In Priest, G., Routley, R., & Norman, J. (Eds.), Paraconsistent logic: Essays on the Inconsistent (pp. 99–130). Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
Arruda, A. I., & Batens, D. (1982). Russell’s set versus the universal set in paraconsistent set theory. Logique et Analyse, 25(8), 121–133.
Asenjo, F. G. (1966). A calculus of antinomies. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 7, 103–105.
Asenjo, F. G. (1989). Toward an antinomic mathematics. In Priest, G., Routley, R., & Norman, J. (Eds.), Paraconsistent logic: Essays on the Inconsistent (pp. 394–414). Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
Asenjo, F. G., & Tamburino, J. (1975). Logic of antinomies. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 16(1), 17–44.
Balaguer, M. (1998). Platonism and anti-platonism in mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barrio, E., & Da Re, B. (2018). Paraconsistency and its philosophical interpretations. Australasian Journal of Logic, 15(2), 151–170.
Barrio, E., Pailos, F., & Szmuc, D. (2017). A paraconsisitent route to semantic closure. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 25(4), 387–401.
Batens, D. (2020). Adaptive Fregean set theory. Studia Logica, 108, 903–939.
Beall, J. (1999). From full blooded platonism to really full blooded platonism. Philosophia Mathematica, 7(3), 322–325.
Beall, J. (2009). Spandrels of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beall, J. (2011). Multiple-conclusion LP and default classicality. Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(2), 326–336.
Beall, J. (2013a). Free of detachment: Logic, rationality, and gluts. Noûs, 49(2), 410–423.
Beall, J. (2013b). Shrieking against gluts: the solution to the ‘just true’ problem. Analysis, 73(3), 438–445.
Beall, J. (2018). The simple argument for subclassical logic. Philosophical Issues, 28(1), 30–54.
Beall, J., Forster, T., & Seligman, J. (2013). A note on freedom from detachment in the logic of paradox. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 54(1), 15–20.
Beall, J., & Ripley, D. (2018). Nonclassical theories of truth. In M. Glanzberg (Ed.), Oxford handbook of truth (pp. 739–754). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bell, J. L. (2005). Set theory: Boolean-valued models and independence proofs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bell, J. L. (2008). A primer of infinitesimal analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Belnap, N. D. (1977). A useful four-valued logic. In Dunn, J. & Epstein, G. (Eds.), Modern uses of multiple-valued logics (pp. 8–37). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Berto, F. (2007). How to sell a contradiction: The logic and metaphysics of inconsistency. London: College.
Brady, R. (1971). The consistency of the axioms of the axioms of abstraction and extensionality in a three-valued logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 12, 447–453.
Brady, R. (1989). The non-triviality of dialectical set theory. In Priest, G., Routley, R., & Norman, J. (Eds.), Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the inconsistent (pp. 437–470). Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
Brady, R. (2006). Universal logic. Stanford: CSLI.
Brady, R., & Mortensen, C. (2014). Logic. In Oppy, G. & Trakakis, N. (Eds.), History of philosophy in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 679–705). Dordrecht: Springer.
Brady, R., & Routley, R. (1989). The non-triviality of extensional dialectical set theory. In Priest, G., Routley, R., & Norman, J. (Eds.), Paraconsistent logic: Essays on the inconsistent (pp. 415–436). Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
Brady, R., & Rush, P. (2008). What is wrong with Cantor’s diagonal argument? Logique et Analyse, 51(202), 185–219.
Brown, B., & Priest, G. (2004). Chunk and permeate, a paraconsistent inference strategy. Part I: The infinitesimal calculus. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33, 379–388.
Brown, J. (2008). Philosophy of mathematics (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Burgess, J. P. (2005). No requirement of relevance. In Shapiro, S. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mathematics and logic (pp. 727–750). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M., & Marcos, J. (2007). Logics of formal inconsistency. In Gabbay, D. & Guenthner, F. (Eds.), Handbook of philosphical logic (Vol. 14, pp. 1–93). Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.
Carnielli, W., & Coniglio, M. E. (2016). Paraconsistent logic: Consistency, contradiction and negation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Carnielli, W., & Coniglio, M. E. (2021). Twist-valued models for three-valued paraconsistent set theory. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 30(2), 187–226.
Carrara, M., & Martino, E. (2021). A note on Gödel, Priest and naїve proof. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 30, 79–96.
Colyvan, M. (2008). The ontological commitments of inconsistent theories. Philosophical Studies, 141(1), 115–23.
Colyvan, M. (2009). Applying inconsistent mathematics. In Bueno, O. and Ø. Linnebo (Eds.) New waves in philosophy of mathematics pp. 160–172. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Colyvan, M. (2012). An introduction to the philosophy of mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Copeland, B., & Sylvan, R. (1999). Beyond the universal turing machine. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77, 46–66.
da Costa, N. C. (1986). On paraconsistent set theory. Logique et Analyse, 29(15), 361.
da Costa, N. C., Krause, D., & Bueno, O. (2007). Paraconsistent logics and paraconsistency. In Jacquette, D. (Ed.), Philosophy of logic (pp. 791–912). Amsterdam: North Holland.
da Costa, N. C. A. (1974). On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15, 497–510.
Dedekind, R. (1901). Essays on the theory of numbers. New York: Dover (Edited and translated by Beman, W. W., 1901. Includes Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen [1872] and Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? [1888]. Dover ed. 1963).
Denyer, N. (1995). Priest’s paraconsistent arithmetic. Mind, 104, 567–575.
D’Ottaviano, I., & Carvalho, T. (2005). Da Costa’s paraconsistent differential calculus and the transference theorem. 2nd Indian International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1659–1678.
Dunn, J. M. (1976). Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailments and “coupled trees.” Philosophical Studies, 29, 149–168.
Dunn, J. M. (1979). A theorem in 3-valued model theory with connections to number theory, type theory, and relevant logic. Studia Logica, 38, 149–169.
Dunn, J. M. (1980). Relevant Robinson’s arithmetic. Studia Logica, 38, 407–418.
Estrada-González, L. (2010). Complement-topoi and dual intuitionistic logic. Australasian Journal of Logic, 9, 26–44.
Estrada-González, L. (2015). From (paraconsistent) topos logic to universal (topos) logic. In Koslow, A. & Buchsbaum, A. (Eds.), The road to universal logic (pp. 263–295). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser.
Estrada-González, L. (2016). Prospects for triviality. In Andreas, H. & Verdée, P. (Eds.), Logical studies of paraconsistent reasoning in science and mathematics (pp. 81–90). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Ferguson, T. M. (2016). On arithmetic formulated connexively. IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 3, 357–376.
Ferguson, T. M. (2019). Inconsistent models (and infinite models) for arithmetics with constructible falsity. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 28, 389–407.
Forster, T. (1995). Set theory with a universal set. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Franks, C. (2009). The autonomy of mathematical knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, H., & Meyer, R. (1992). Whither relevant arithmetic? Journal of Symbolic Logic, 57, 824–831.
Goldblatt, R. (1998). Lectures on the hyperreals. Berlin: Springer.
Gomes, E., & D’Ottaviano, I. (forthcoming). Illuminating contradictions: A history of paraconsistent logic. Synthese Library, Springer.
Goodship, L. (1996). On dialethism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(1), 153–161.
Halmos, P. (1974). Naive set theory. New York: Springer.
Istre, E., & McKubre-Jordens, M. (2019). The difficulties in using weak relevant logics for naive set theory. In Baskent, C. & Ferguson, T. (Eds.), Graham Priest on dialetheism and paraconsistency (pp. 365–381). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Jacquette, D. (Ed.). (2007). Philosophy of logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Jech, T. (2003). Set theory (Third millennium edition, revised and expanded). Berlin: Springer.
Jockwich-Martinez, S., & Venturi, G. (2021). Non-classical models of ZF. Studia Logica, 09, 509–537.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leitgeb, H. (2009). On formal and informal provability. In New waves in philosophy of mathematics (pp. 263–299). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Libert, T. (2005). Models for paraconsistent set theory. Journal of Applied Logic, 3, 15–41.
Lisboa, M. A., & Secco, G. D. (2022). History of logic in Latin America: The case of Ayda Ignez Arruda. British Journal of History of Philosophy, 30(2), 384–408.
Löwe, B., & Tarafder, S. (2015). Generalized algebra-valued models of set theory. Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(1), 209–225.
Maddy, P. (1992). Indispensability and practice. Journal of Philosophy, 89(6), 275–289.
Mancosu, P. (2009). Measuring the size of infinite collections of natural numbers. Review of Symbolic Logic, 2(4), 612–646.
Marcos, J. (2005). Logics of formal inconsistency. Brazil: Fundaçäc Biblioteca Nacional.
McKubre-Jordens, M., & Weber, Z. (2012). Real analysis in paraconsistent logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(5), 901–922.
McKubre-Jordens, M., & Weber, Z. (2016). Paraconsistent measurement of the circle. Australasian Journal of Logic, 14(1), 268–280.
Meadows, T., & Weber, Z. (2016). Computation in non-classical foundations? Philosophers’ Imprint, 16, 1–17.
Meyer, R. K. (1985). Proving semantical completeness “relevantly” for R. Logic Research Paper (23), RSSS, Australian National University.
Meyer, R. K. (1998). ⊃-E is admissible in “true” relevant arithmetic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 27, 327–351.
Meyer, R. K. (2021a). Arithmetic formulated relevantly. Australasian Journal of Logic, 18(5), 154–288 (typescript circa 1976).
Meyer, R. K. (2021b). The consistency of arithmetic. Australasian Journal of Logic, 18 (5),289–379 (typescript circa 1976).
Meyer, R. K. (2021c). Relevant arithmetic. Australasian Journal of Logic, 18(5), 150–153. (Abstract originally published in the Bulletin of the Section of Logic 1976).
Meyer, R. K., & Mortensen, C. (1984). Inconsistent models for relevant arithmetics. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49, 917–929.
Meyer, R. K., & Mortensen, C. (1987). Alien intruders in relevant arithmetic. Technical Report, TR-ARP(9/87).
Meyer, R. K., & Restall, G. (1999). “Strenge” arithmetics. Logique et Analyse, 42, 205–220.
Meyer, R. K., & Urbas, I. (1986). Conservative extension in relevant arithmetic. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 32(1–5), 45–50.
Moore, G. H. (1982). Zermelo’s axiom of choice. New York: Springer Verlag.
Mortensen, C. (1988). Inconsistent number systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29, 45–60.
Mortensen, C. (1995). Inconsistent mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Mortensen, C. (2009). Inconsistent mathematics: Some philosophical implications. In Irvine, A. (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science, volume 9: Philosophy of mathematics (pp. 631–649). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Mortensen, C. (2010). Inconsistent geometry. London: College.
Mortensen, C. (2022). The impossible arises. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Mortensen, C., & Leishman, S. (2009). Linear algebra representation of Necker cubes I: The crazy crate. Australasian Journal of Logic, 7, 1–9.
Nelson, D. (1959). Negation and separation of concepts in constructive systems. In Heyting, A. (Ed.), Constructivity in mathematics (pp. 208–225). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Øgaard, T. F. (2016). Paths to triviality. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(3), 237–276.
Omori, H. (2015). Remarks on naive set theory based on LP. Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(2), 279–295.
Omori, H., & De, M. (2022). Shrieking, shrugging, and the Australian plan. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, (forthcoming).
Omori, H., & Wansing, H. (2019a). Connexive logics. an overview and current trends. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 28, 371–387.
Omori, H., & Wansing, H. (Eds.). (2019b). New essays on Belnap-Dunn logic. Cham, Switzerland: Synthese Library, Springer.
Omori, H., & Weber, Z. (2019). Just true? On the metatheory for paraconsistent truth. Logique et Analyse, 248, 415–433.
Paris, J., & Sirokofskich, A. (2008). On LP-models of arithmetic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 73, 212–226.
Potter, M. (2004). Set theory and its philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon.
Priest, G. (1979). The logic of paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 219–241.
Priest, G. (1994a). Is arithmetic consistent? Mind, 103 (411), 337–349.
Priest, G. (1994b). What could the least inconsistent number be? Logique et Analyse, 145, 3–12.
Priest, G. (1997). Inconsistent models of arithmetic part I: Finite models. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 26, 223–235.
Priest, G. (2000). Inconsistent models of arithmetic part II: The general case. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 65, 1519–1529.
Priest, G. (2005). Towards non-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Priest, G. (2006). In contradiction: A study of the transconsistent (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Priest, G. (2008). An introduction to non-classical logic (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Priest, G. (2013). Mathematical pluralism. Journal of the IGPL, 21, 4–13.
Priest, G. (2014). One. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Priest, G. (2017a). A note on the axiom of countability. If CoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 4, 1351–1356. (First published in Al-Mukhatabat 2012).
Priest, G. (2017b). What if? The exploration of an idea. Australasian Journal of Logic, 14(1), 55–127.
Priest, G. (2019). Some comments and replies. In Baskent, C. & Ferguson, T. (Eds.), Graham Priest on dialetheism andparaconsistency (pp. 575–675). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Priest, G. (2021). A note on mathematical pluralism and logical pluralism. Synthese, 198, 4937–4946.
Priest, G., Routley, R., & Norman, J. (Eds.). (1989). Paraconsistent logic: Essays on the inconsistent. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
Rayo, A., & Uzquiano, G. (Eds.). (2006). Absolute generality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Restall, G. (1992). A note on naїve set theory in LP. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 33, 422–432.
Rosenblatt, L. (2021a). Expressing consistency consistently. Thought, 10(1), 33–41.
Rosenblatt, L. (2021b). Towards a non-classical meta-theory for substructural approaches to paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 50, 1007–1055.
Rosenblatt, L. (2022). Should the non-classical logician be embarassed. Philosopy and Phenomenological Research, 104(2), 388–407.
Routley, R. (1977). Ultralogic as universal? (First appeared in two parts in The Relevance Logic Newsletter 2(1), 51–90, January 1977 and 2(2), 138–75, May 1977; reprinted as appendix to Exploring Meinong’s Jungle and Beyond 1980, pp. 892–962; new edition as The Sylvan Jungle, vol. 4, edited by Weber, Z., Library, Synthese, 2019).
Routley, R. (1979). Dialectical logic, semantics and metamathematics. Erkenntnis, 14, 301–331.
Routley, R. (1980a). The choice of logical foundations: Non-classical choices and the ultralogical choice. Studia Logica, 39(1), 77–98.
Routley, R. (1980b). Exploring Meinong’s jungle and beyond. Canberra: Philosophy Department, RSSS, Australian National University (Departmental Monograph number 3. Reprinted in four volumes as The Sylvan Jungle, edited by Dominic Hyde et al., Synthese Library, 2019–2020).
Routley, R., & Meyer, R. K. (1976). Dialectical logic, classical logic and the consistency of the world. Studies in Soviet Thought, 16, 1–25.
Russell, B. (1903). The principles of mathematics. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Russell, G. (2018). Logical nihilism: could there be no logic? Philosophical Issues, 28(1), 308–24.
Schotch, P., Brown, B., & Jennings, R. (Eds.). (2009). On preserving: Essays on preservationism and paraconsistent logic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Shapiro, S. (1998). Incompleteness, mechanism, and optimism. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 4, 273–302.
Shapiro, S. (2002). Incompleteness and inconsistency. Mind, 111, 817–832.
Shapiro, S. (2014). Varieties of logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shapiro, S., & Wright, C. (2006). All things indefinitely extensible. In Rayo, A. & Uzquiano, G. (Eds.) Absolute generality, (pp. 255–304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spivak, M. (1999). A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry (3rd ed., 4 vols.). Berkley: Publish or Perish.
Steinberger, F. (2019). Logical pluralism and logical normativity. Philosopher’s Imprint, 19(12), 1–19.
Sylvan, R., & Copeland, J. (2000). Computability is logic relative. In D. Hyde & G. Priest (Eds.), Sociative logics and their applications (pp. 189–199). Surrey: Ashgate.
Tanswell, F. (2016). Saving proof from paradox: Gödel’s paradox and the inconsistency of informal mathematics. In Andreas, H. & Verdée, P (Eds.), Logical studies of paraconsistent reasoning in science and mathematics (pp. 159–174). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Tedder, A. (2015). Axioms for finite collapse models of arithmetic. Review of Symbolic Logic, 3, 529–539.
Tedder, A. (2021). On consistency and decidability in some paraconsistent arithmetics. Australasian Journal of Logic, 18(5), 473–502.
Thomas, M. (2014a). A conjecture about the interpretation of classical mathematics in naive set theory. Presented at the Paraconsistent Reasoning in Science and Mathematics conference, LMU 2014.
Thomas, M. (2014b). Expressive limitations of naive set theory in LP and minimally inconsistent LP. Review of Symbolic Logic, 7(2), 341–350.
Thro, E. B. (1983). Distinguishing two classes of impossible objects. Perception, 12, 733–751.
van Bendegem, J. P. (2003). Classical arithmetic is quite unnatural. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 11, 231–249.
van Benthem, J. (1978). Four paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 7(1), 49–72.
van Heijenoort, J. (Ed.). (1967). From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Verdée, P. (2013a). Non-monotinic set theory as a pragmatic foundation of mathematics. Foundations of Science, 18, 655–680.
Verdée, P. (2013b). Strong, universal and provably non-trivial set theory by means of adaptive logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 21, 108–125.
Warren, J. (2018). Change of logic, change of meaning. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(2), 421–442.
Weber, Z. (2010). Transfinite numbers in paraconsistent set theory. Review of Symbolic Logic, 3(1), 71–92.
Weber, Z. (2012). Transfinite cardinals in paraconsistent set theory. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(2), 269–293.
Weber, Z. (2016). Paraconsistent computation and dialetheic machines. In Anreas, H. & Verdée, P. (Eds.), Logical studies of paraconsistent reasoning in science and mathematics (pp. 205–223). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Weber, Z. (2021). Paradoxes and inconsistent mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, Z., Badia, G., & Girard, P. (2016). What is an inconsistent truth table? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 94(3), 533–548.
Weber, Z., & Cotnoir, A. (2015). Inconsistent boundaries. Synthese, 192(5), 1267–1294.
Weir, A. (2004). There are no true contradictions. In Priest, G., Beall, J. C., & Armour-Garb, B. (Eds.), The law of non-contradiction (pp. 385–417). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (in three volumes, 1910–1913).
