Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The logic subDL and its quantified extension subDLQ were proposed by Badia and Weber (Dialethism and its Applications, 2019: 155-176) as a basis for developing a version of mathematics in which paradoxes are harmless. In the present paper, subDL as defined in the literature is shown to be too strong to support the theories which motivate it. The crucial point is that contraction is derivable in subDL. It follows that the semantic structure used by Badia and Weber to invalidate contraction is not, in fact, a model of subDL. Here we identify the axioms responsible for contraction in subDL and prove that the logic, weakened by removal of these axioms, is contraction-free and paraconsistent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John Slaney (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: