{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,2]],"date-time":"2026-06-02T08:19:40Z","timestamp":1780388380750,"version":"3.54.1"},"reference-count":22,"publisher":"Duke University Press","issue":"4","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Notre Dame J. Formal Logic"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,1,1]]},"DOI":"10.1215\/00294527-2017-0017","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2017,7,18]],"date-time":"2017-07-18T08:03:12Z","timestamp":1500364992000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":15,"title":["Ekman\u2019s Paradox"],"prefix":"10.1215","volume":"58","author":[{"given":"Peter","family":"Schroeder-Heister","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Luca","family":"Tranchini","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"73","reference":[{"key":"1","unstructured":"[1] Crabb\u00e9, M., \u201cNon-normalisation de ZF\/Counterexample to normalisation for ZF,\u201d Proof Theory Symposium, Kiel 1974, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.logic-center.be\/Publications\/Bibliotheque\/contreexemple.pdf\">http:\/\/www.logic-center.be\/Publications\/Bibliotheque\/contreexemple.pdf<\/a>."},{"key":"15","unstructured":"[15] Schroeder-Heister, P., <i>Proof-Theoretic Semantics<\/i>, <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/i>, edited by E.N. Zalta, <a href=\"plato.stanford.edu\">plato.stanford.edu<\/a>, Stanford, 2012."},{"key":"2","unstructured":"[2] Do\u0161en, K., \u201cLogical consequence: A turn in style,\u201d pp. 289\u2013311 in <i>Logic and Scientific Methods: Volume One of the Tenth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, August 1995<\/i>, edited by M. L. Dalla Chiara, K. Doets, D. Mundici, and J. van Benthem, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997."},{"key":"3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"[3] Do\u0161en, K., <i>Cut Elimination in Categories<\/i>, Springer, Berlin, 2000.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-94-017-1207-1"},{"key":"4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"[4] Do\u0161en, K., \u201cIdentity of proofs based on normalization and generality,\u201d <i>Bulletin of Symbolic Logic<\/i>, vol. 9 (2003), pp. 477\u2013503.","DOI":"10.2178\/bsl\/1067620091"},{"key":"5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"[5] Do\u0161en, K., \u201cModels of deduction,\u201d <i>Synthese<\/i>, vol. 148 (2006), pp. 639\u201357.","DOI":"10.1007\/s11229-004-6290-7"},{"key":"6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"[6] Do\u0161en, K., and Z. Petri\u0107, \u201cThe typed B\u00f6hm theorem,\u201d <i>Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science<\/i>, vol. 50 (2001), pp. 117\u201329.","DOI":"10.1016\/S1571-0661(04)00168-9"},{"key":"7","unstructured":"[7] Do\u0161en, K., and Z. Petri\u0107, <i>Proof-Theoretical Coherence<\/i>, College Publications, London, 2004."},{"key":"8","unstructured":"[8] Ekman, J., <i>Normal Proofs in Set Theory<\/i>, Ph.D. dissertation, Unversity of G\u00f6teborg, Gotenberg, Germany, 1994."},{"key":"9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"[9] Ekman, J., \u201cPropositions in propositional logic provable only by indirect proofs,\u201d <i>Mathematical Logic Quarterly<\/i>, vol. 44 (1998), pp. 69\u201391.","DOI":"10.1002\/malq.19980440105"},{"key":"10","unstructured":"[10] Halln\u00e4s, L., \u201cOn Normalization of Proofs in Set Theory,\u201d Ph.D. thesis, University of G\u00f6teborg, 1983, <i>Dissertationes Mathematicae<\/i>, vol. 261, Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa, 1988."},{"key":"11","unstructured":"[11] Prawitz, D., <i>Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study<\/i>, Almqvist &amp; Wiksell, Stockholm, 1965. Reprinted Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006."},{"key":"12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"[12] Prawitz, D., \u201cIdeas and results in proof theory,\u201d pp. 235\u2013308 in <i>Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium (Oslo 1970)<\/i>, edited by J. E. Fenstad, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.","DOI":"10.1016\/S0049-237X(08)70849-8"},{"key":"13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"[13] Rogerson, S., \u201cNatural deduction and Curry\u2019s paradox,\u201d <i>Journal of Philosophical Logic<\/i>, vol. 36 (2007), pp. 155\u201379.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10992-006-9032-0"},{"key":"14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"[14] Schroeder-Heister, P., \u201cProof-theoretic semantics, self-contradiction, and the format of deductive reasoning,\u201d <i>Topoi<\/i>, vol. 31 (2012), pp. 77\u201385.","DOI":"10.1007\/s11245-012-9119-x"},{"key":"16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"[16] St\u00e5lmarck, G., \u201cNormalization theorems for full first order classical natural deduction,\u201d <i>The Journal of Symbolic Logic<\/i>, vol. 56 (1991), pp. 129\u201349.","DOI":"10.2307\/2274910"},{"key":"17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"[17] Sundholm, G., \u201cReview of Michael Dummett, elements of intuitionism,\u201d <i>Theoria<\/i>, vol. 45 (1979), pp. 90\u20135.","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1755-2567.1979.tb00796.x"},{"key":"18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"[18] Tennant, N., \u201cProof and paradox,\u201d <i>Dialectica<\/i>, vol. 36 (1982), pp. 265\u201396.","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1746-8361.1982.tb00820.x"},{"key":"19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"[19] Tennant, N., \u201cOn paradox without self-reference,\u201d <i>Analysis<\/i>, vol. 55 (1995), pp. 199\u2013207.","DOI":"10.1093\/analys\/55.3.199"},{"key":"20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"[20] Tranchini, L., \u201cHarmonising harmony,\u201d <i>Review of Symbolic Logic<\/i>, vol. 8 (2015), pp. 411\u201323.","DOI":"10.1017\/S1755020315000179"},{"key":"21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"[21] Tranchini, L., \u201cProof-theoretic semantics, paradoxes and the distinction between sense and denotation,\u201d <i>Journal of Logic and Computation<\/i>, vol. 26 (2016), pp. 495\u2013512.","DOI":"10.1093\/logcom\/exu028"},{"key":"22","unstructured":"[22] Wideb\u00e4ck, F., <i>Identity of Proofs<\/i>, Almqvist &amp; Wiksell, Stockholm, 2001."}],"container-title":["Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/projecteuclid.org\/journalArticle\/Download?urlid=10.1215\/00294527-2017-0017","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,30]],"date-time":"2024-01-30T20:58:50Z","timestamp":1706648330000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/projecteuclid.org\/journals\/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic\/volume-58\/issue-4\/Ekmans-Paradox\/10.1215\/00294527-2017-0017.full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2017,1,1]]},"references-count":22,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,1,1]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1215\/00294527-2017-0017","relation":{},"ISSN":["0029-4527"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0029-4527","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2017,1,1]]}}}