heterological

Grelling-Nelson paradox: Is the word "heterological", meaning "not applicable to itself," a heterological word?

Recently Uploaded Slideshows ANEEK 2010

The sources were abundant ” letters, court records, pamphlets, memoirs ” and since Certeau's original French edition was part of a series of primary documents, he could prepare a book with different voices and thereby capture a "heterological" perspective: his own from the present, and those from the past, "each of [the] halves say [ing] what is missing from the other."

The Quest of Michel de Certeau Davis, Natalie Zemon 2008

Both contradictions can be presented as sequences of equivalences, and both sequences share the same structure, as seen below (where "het" abbreviates "heterological"):

Self-Reference Bolander, Thomas 2008

It should be stressed that Weyl's attitude towards Grelling's antinomy is utterly negative: he considers it pure Scholasticism (Weyl 1918, section 1): there is no way, according to him, of assigning a meaning to ˜heterological™ and one should ultimately resolve these problems by appealing to philosophy.

Paradoxes and Contemporary Logic Cantini, Andrea 2007

To each word there corresponds a concept, that the very word designates, and which applies to it or does not apply; in the first case, we call the word autological, else heterological.

Paradoxes and Contemporary Logic Cantini, Andrea 2007

Now the word ˜heterological™ itself is autological or heterological.

Paradoxes and Contemporary Logic Cantini, Andrea 2007

But if the word is heterological, the designated concept does not apply, so

Paradoxes and Contemporary Logic Cantini, Andrea 2007

In other words, “Is ˜heterological™ heterological?” is ill formed (and so meaningless on syntactic grounds).

Epistemic Paradoxes Sorensen, Roy 2006

The common solution to this puzzle is that ˜heterological™, as defined by Grelling, is not a genuine predicate (Thomson 1962).

Epistemic Paradoxes Sorensen, Roy 2006

Now for the riddle: Is ˜heterological™ heterological or autological?

Epistemic Paradoxes Sorensen, Roy 2006