Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-ntvhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-12T16:46:33.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONSISTENCY AND THE THEORY OF TRUTH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2015

RICHARD G. HECK JR.
RICHARD G. HECK JR.*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Brown University
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY BROWN UNIVERSITY PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 E-mail: rgheck@brown.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What is the logical strength of theories of truth? That is: If you take a theory ${\cal T}$ and add a theory of truth to it, how strong is the resulting theory, as compared to ${\cal T}$? Once the question has been properly formulated, the answer turns out to be about as elegant as one could want: At least when ${\cal T}$ is finitely axiomatized theory, theories of truth act more or less as a kind of abstract consistency statement. To prove this result, however, we have to formulate truth-theories somewhat differently from how they have been and instead follow Tarski in ‘disentangling’ syntactic theories from object theories.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 424 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beklemishev, L. D. (2005). Reflection principles and provability algebras in formal arithmetic. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 60, 197–268.Google Scholar
Burgess, J. P. (2005). Fixing Frege. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, S. R. (1986). Bounded Arithmetic. Napoli: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Corcoran, J., Frank, W., & Maloney, M. (1974). String theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 39, 625–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W., & Vaught, R. L. (1958). Finite axiomatizability using additional predicates. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enayat, A., & Visser, A. (2012). New constructions of full satisfaction classes. Manuscript available athttp://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/266885/preprint303.pdf.Google Scholar
Enayat, A., & Visser, A. (2014). Full satisfaction classes in a general setting (Part I). Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1960). Arithmetization of metamathematics in a general setting. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 49, 35–92.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. (2009). Minimal truth and interpretability. Review of Symbolic Logic, 2, 799–815.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. (2014). Truth and speed-up. Review of Symbolic Logic, 7, 319–340.Google Scholar
Grzegorczyk, A. (2005). Undecidability without arithmetization. Studia Logica, 79, 163–230.Google Scholar
Hájek, P. (2007). Mathematical fuzzy logic and natural numbers. Fundamenta Informaticae, 81, 155–63.Google Scholar
Hájek, P., & Pudlák, P. (1993). Metamathematics of First-order Arithmetic. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbach, V. (2011). Axiomatic Theories of Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heck, R. G. (2005). Reason and language. In MacDonald, C. and MacDonald, G., editor. McDowell and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwells, pp. 22–45.Google Scholar
Heck, R. G. (2007). Meaning and truth-conditions. In Greimann, D. and Siegwart, G., editor. Truth and Speech Acts: Studies in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Routledge, pp. 349–376.Google Scholar
Heck, R. G. (2009). The strength of truth-theories. Manuscript available athttp://rgheck.frege.org/pdf/unpublished/StrengthOfTruthTheories.pdf.Google Scholar
Heck, R. G. (2014a). Frege arithmetic and “everyday mathematics”. Philosophia Mathematica, 22, 279–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, R. G. (2014b). The logical strength of compositional principles. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. (1952). Finite axiomatizability of theories in the predicate calculus using additional predicate symbols. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, 10, 27–68.Google Scholar
Kotlarski, H. (1986). Bounded induction and satisfaction classes. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik, 32, 531–544.Google Scholar
Kotlarski, H., Krajewski, S., & Lachlan, A. H. (1981). Construction of satisfaction classes for nonstandard models. Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, 24, 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leigh, G. E. (2013). Conservativity for theories of compositional truth via cut elimination. Forthcoming in the Journal of Symbolic Logic. Manuscript available athttp://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0168.Google Scholar
Leigh, G. E., & Nicolai, C. (2013). Axiomatic truth, syntax and metatheoretic reasoning. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 6, 613–636.Google Scholar
Mostowski, A. (1950). Some impredicative definitions in the axiomatic set-theory. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 37, 111–124.Google Scholar
Mostowski, A. (1952). On models of axiomatic systems. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 39, 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E. (1986). Predicative Arithmetic. Mathematical Notes 32. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolai, C. (2014). A note on typed truth and consistency assertions. Journal of Philosophical Logic. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Orey, S. (1961). Relative interpretations. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 7, 146–153.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. (1974). Sets and classes. Noûs, 8, 1–12.Google Scholar
Pudlák, P. (1983). Some prime elements in the lattice of interpretability types. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 280, 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pudlák, P. (1985). Cuts, consistency statements and interpretations. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1946). Concatenation as a basis for arithmetic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 11, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Švejdar, V. (2007). An interpretation of Robinson arithmetic in Grzegorczyk’s weaker variant. Fundamenta Informaticae, 81, 347–354.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341–375.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1953). A general method in proofs of undecidability. In Tarski et al. . (1953). pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1958). The concept of truth in formalized languages. In Corcoran, J., editor. Logic, Semantics, and Metamathematics. Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 152–278.Google Scholar
Tarski, A., Mostowski, A., & Robinson, A. (1953). Undecidable Theories. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Wesep, R. A. (2013). Satisfaction relations for proper classes: Applications in logic and set theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 78, 245–268.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2006). Categories of theories and interpretations. In Enayat, A. and Kalantari, I. editor. Logic in Tehran: Proceedings of the Workshop and Conference on Logic, Algebra and Arithmetic, Held October 18–22, 2003. Wellesley, MA: A. K. Peters, pp. 284–341.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (1991). The formalization of interpretability, Studia Logica, 50, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, A. (1992). An inside view of EXP. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 57, 131–165.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2008). Pairs, sets and sequences in first-order theories. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 47, 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, A. (2009a). Can we make the second incompleteness theorem coordinate free? Journal of Logic and Computation, 21, 543–560.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2009b). Growing commas: A study of sequentiality and concatenation. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 50, 61–85.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2009c). The predicative Frege hierarchy. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 160, 129–153.Google Scholar
Wang, H. (1952). Truth definitions and consistency proofs. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 73, 243–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkie, A. J., & Paris, J. B. (1987). On the scheme of induction for bounded arithmetic formulas. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 35, 261–302.Google Scholar