Randomized trial evaluates classical paradoxes classification, suggesting a novel machine-checking approach.
A machine-checked census of the classical paradoxes. Every self-referential sentence is run through one executable instrument that counts its consistent classical solutions and issues a passport: 0 → PARADOX (refusal forever), 1 → INTRINSIC (forced verdict), 2+ → UNDERDETERMINED (a choice awaiting a decree). 21 case files, 8 verdicts, each reproducible with python3 zclassify.py. The taxonomy descends from Kripke and Gupta–Belnap; what is new is executability — old disputes (is circularity vicious; is a loop hidden in Yablo; is Curry the liar; is the Ship of Theseus a paradox) receive measured, not argued, answers. Prepared in co-authorship with an AI (Claude Fable 5, Variant A); curator Vitaly Reznik.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vitaliy Reznik (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: