Bibliography

(eng): The sorites paradox has been intensively discussed in the literature and several competing theories of vagueness have emerged. Given a vague predicate F and a sequence of objects 1, 2, ..., n, such that: F(1) is true, F(n) is false, and for each i, the objects i and i+1 are extremely similar in all respects relevant to the application of F; the sorites paradox is an argument which, based on two apparently true premises F(1) and “for each i: F(i) implies F(i+1)”, after n applications of modus ponens reaches the clearly false conclusion F(n).