Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T16:26:22.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A guide to truth predicates in the modern era

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Michael Sheard
Michael Sheard*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts 01002
*
Department of Mathematics, St. Lawrence University, Canton, New York 13617, E-mail: mshe@slumus.bitnet
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A reader coming anew to the recent work on languages which contain their own truth predicates may be perplexed by the simple question of where to begin. A first approach to the literature suggests a field which is alive and busy with investigations heading in many different directions, but there is much less indication of how various pieces fit together. There are at least two sources of this confusion. First, the literature is large and diffuse (as befits a subject which goes back over 2000 years); Visser's survey [33] aptly describes the literature as “vast but scattered, repetitive, and disconnected.” Moreover, recent interest in the field has led to a proliferation of research and publication; it seems that almost any issue of any philosophical logic journal from the mid-1980s contains some article on the topic. The second reason, in part a consequence of the first, is that while a typical article in print usually presents a good internal motivation, with clear reference to its immediate intellectual antecedents, its place in the broader picture may not be so easily discerned. The problem can be especially acute in presentations of axiomatic approaches, because decisions on certain basic questions can lie hidden in the formal and notational details which abound in any axiomatization.

In fact, though, the recent research on methods for handling self-referential truth can be seen as a body of work which is very well structured, one in which a few fundamental decisions suffice to locate any particular approach in its appropriate place on the landscape. My goal is to describe this structure and in particular to stress a few critical forks in the road, which will be the recurring metaphor throughout this paper. I will also pay particular attention to pointing out where the interesting technical and mathematical questions lie.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 1032 - 1054
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Aczel, P. and Feferman, S., Consistency of the unrestricted abstraction principle using anintensional equivalence operator, To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus,and Formalism (Seldin, J. P. and Hindley, J. R., editors), Academic Press. New York, 1980. pp. 67–98.Google Scholar
[2]Barwise, Jon and Etchemendy, John, The Liar—An essay on truth and circularity, Oxford University Press, London and New York, 1987.Google Scholar
[3]Belnap, Nuel D. Jr., Gupta's rule of revision theory of truth, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 11 (1982), pp. 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Burgess, J., The truth is never simple, this Journal, vol. 51 (1986), pp. 663–681.Google Scholar
[5]Burgess, J., Addendum to “The truth is never simple”, this Journal, vol. 53 (1988), pp. 390–392.Google Scholar
[6]Cantini, A., Notes on formal theories of truth, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 35 (1989), pp. 97–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Cantini, A., A theory of formal truth arithmetically equivalent to I D1, this Journal, vol. 55 (1990), pp. 244–259.Google Scholar
[8]Feferman, S., Toward useful type-free theories, I, this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 244–259. reprinted in Martin [23], pp. 237–287: page references refer to the latter source.Google Scholar
[9]Feferman, S., Reflecting on incompleteness, this Journal, vol. 56 (1991), pp. 1–49.Google Scholar
[10]Friedman, H. and Sheard, M., An axiomatic approach to self-referential truth, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 33 (1987), pp. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Gilmore, P. C., The consistency of partial set theory without extensionality, Axiomatic Set Theory (Jech, T.. editor), Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Volume XIII, Part 2, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1974, pp. 147–153.Google Scholar
[12]Gupta, A., Truth and paradox, Journal Philosophical Logic, vol. 11 (1982), pp. 1–60: reprinted in Martin [23], pp. 175–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Gupta, A. and Belnap, N., The revision theory of truth, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Hellman, G., review of Martin, & Woodruff, [24]. Kripke, [20], Gupta, [12], Herzberger, [15], this Journal, vol. 50 (1985), pp. 1068–1071.Google Scholar
[15]Herzberger, H. G., Notes on naive semantics, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 11 (1982), pp. 61–102: reprinted in Martin [23], pp. 133–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Kleene, S. C., An introduction to metamathematics, D. Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, New Jersey, 1952.Google Scholar
[17]Kotlarski, H., Full satisfaction classes: a survey, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 32 (1991), pp. 573–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Kotlarski, H. and Ratajczyk, Z., More on induction in the language with a full satisfaction class, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 36 (1990), pp. 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Krajewski, S., Nonstandard satisfaction classes, Set theory and hierarchy theory (Marek, W.. Srebrny, M., and Zarach, A., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 537, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1976. pp. 121–144.Google Scholar
[20]Kripke, S., Outline of a theory of truth, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 72 (1975), pp. 690–716: reprinted in Martin [23], pp. 53–81: page references refer to the latter source.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Manna, Z. and Shamir, A., The theoretical aspects of the optimal fixed point, SIAM Journal of Computing, vol. 5 (1976), pp. 414–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Martin, D. A., review of Barwise, & Etchemendy [2], this Journal, vol. 57 (1992), pp. 252–254.Google Scholar
[23]Martin, R. L. (editor), Recent essays on truth and the liar paradox, Oxford University Press. London and New York, 1984.Google Scholar
[24]Martin, R. L. and Woodruff, P. W., On representing “true-in-L” in L, Philosophia, vol. 5 (1975), pp. 217–221: reprinted in Martin [23], pp. 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25]McGee, V., Truth, vagueness, and paradox: An essay on the logic of truth, Doctoral dissertation, Hackett Publishing Co., 1991.Google Scholar
[26]McGee, V., How truthlike can a predicate be? A negative result, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 14 (1985), pp. 399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27]Montague, R., Syntactic treatments of modality, with corollaries on reflection principles and finite axiomatizability, Acta Philosophical Fennica, vol. 16 (1963), pp. 153–167.Google Scholar
[28]Moschovakis, Y. N., Elementary induction on abstract structures, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1974.Google Scholar
[29]Reinhardt, W. N., Some remarks on extending and interpreting theories with a partial predicate for truth, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 15 (1986), pp. 219–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30]Shapiro, S. (editor), Intensional mathematics, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 113, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1985.Google Scholar
[31]Tymoczko, T., An unsolved puzzle about knowledge, Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 34 (1984), pp. 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[32]Van Fraassen, B. C., Presupposition, implication, and self-reference, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 65 (1968), pp. 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[33]Visser, A., Semantics and the liar paradox, Handbook of Philsophical Logic (Gabbay, D. and Guenther, F., editors), D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1989. pp. 617–706.Google Scholar