Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T20:52:48.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EQUIVALENCES FOR TRUTH PREDICATES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2017

CARLO NICOLAI
CARLO NICOLAI*
Affiliation:
Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, LMU Munich
*
*MUNICH CENTER FOR MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY GESCHWISTER-SCHOLL PLATZ 1, MUNICH GERMANY E-mail: Carlo.Nicolai@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One way to study and understand the notion of truth is to examine principles that we are willing to associate with truth, often because they conform to a pre-theoretical or to a semi-formal characterization of this concept. In comparing different collections of such principles, one requires formally precise notions of inter-theoretic reduction that are also adequate to compare these conceptual aspects. In this work I study possible ways to make precise the relation of conceptual equivalence between notions of truth associated with collections of principles of truth. In doing so, I will consider refinements and strengthenings of the notion of relative truth-definability proposed by Fujimoto (2010): in particular I employ suitable variants of notions of equivalence of theories considered in Visser (2006) and Friedman & Visser (2014) to show that there are better candidates than mutual truth-definability for the role of sufficient condition for conceptual equivalence between the semantic notions associated with the theories. In the concluding part of the paper, I extend the techniques introduced in the first and show that there is a precise sense in which ramified truth (either disquotational or compositional) does not correspond to iterations of comprehension.

Keywords

03F2503F3003F3503A05Formal Theories of Truthinterpretabilitysameness of theoriesarithmetical comprehension
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 322 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2017 

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cantini, A. (1989). Notes on formal theories of truth. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 35, 97–130.Google Scholar
Cieśliński, C. (2010). Truth, conservativeness, and provability. Mind, 474, 409–422.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enayat, A. & Visser, A. (2015). New constructions of satisfaction classes. In Achourioti, D., Fernández, J. M., Galinon, H., and Fujimoto, K., editors. Unifying the Philosophy of Truth. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 321–335.Google Scholar
Enayat, A., Schmerl, J. H., & Visser, A. (2010). ω-models of finite set theory. In Kennedy, J. and Kossak, R., editors. Set theory, Arithmetic, and Foundations of Mathematics: Theorems, Philosophies. Lecture Notes in Logic, Vol. 36. La Jolla, CA: Association for Symbolic Logic, 2010, pp. 43–65.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1960). Arithmetization of metamathematics in a general setting. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 49(1), 35–92.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1964). Systems of predicative analysis. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 29(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. (1991). Reflecting on incompleteness. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 56, 1–49.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1998). What rests on what? The proof-theoretic analysis of mathematics. In Feferman, S., editor. In the Light of Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar
Field, H. (2008). Saving Truth from Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. (2009). Minimal truth and interpretability. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 2(4), 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, M., Halbach, V., Kriener, J. & Stern, J. (2015). Axiomatizing semantic theories of truth? The Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(2), 257–278.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. & Sheard, M. (1987). An axiomatic approach to self-referential truth. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 33, 1–21.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. & Visser, A. (2014). When Bi-Interpretability Implies Synonymy. Logic Group Preprint Series. University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Fujimoto, K. (2010). Relative truth definability of axiomatic truth theories. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 16(3), 305–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, P. & Pudlák, P. (1998). Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Halbach, V. (1999). Disquotationalism and infinite conjunctions. Mind, 108, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbach, V. (2009). Reducing compositional to disquotational truth. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 2, 786–798.Google Scholar
Halbach, L. (2014). Axiomatic Theories of Truth (revised edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halbach, V. & Horsten, L. (2015). Norms for theories of reflexive truth. In Achourioti, D., Fernández, J. M., Galinon, H. and Fujimoto, K., editors. Unifying the Philosophy of Truth. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, R. (2015). Consistency and the theory of truth. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(3), 424–466.Google Scholar
Horsten, L. (2011). The Tarskian Turn: Deflationism and Axiomatic Truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaye, R. & Wong, T. L. (2007). On interpretations of arithmetic and set theory. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 48(4), 497–510.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1975). Outline of a theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 690–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, S. & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts: Core Readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leigh, G. E. (2015). Conservativity for theories of compositional truth via cut elimination. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 80(3), 825–865.Google Scholar
Leigh, G. & Nicolai, C. (2013). Axiomatic truth, syntax, metatheoretic reasoning. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 6(4), 613–636.Google Scholar
Leitgeb, H. (2007). What theories of truth should be like (but cannot be). Blackwell Philosophy Compass 2. Blackwell, pp. 276–290.Google Scholar
Lutz, S. (2016). What was the syntax-semantics debate in the philosophy of science about? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, forthcoming, doi: 10.1111/phpr.12221.Google Scholar
Nicolai, C. (2016a). A note on typed truth and consistency assertions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(1), 89–119.Google Scholar
Nicolai, C. (2016b). More on systems of truth and predicative comprehension. In Boccuni, F. and Sereni, A., editors. Philosophy of Mathematics: Objectivity, Cognition and Proof. Boston Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. (1987). Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schwichtenberg, H. & Wainer, S. (2011). Proofs and Computations. ASL Lecture Notes Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. G. (2009). Subsystems of Second-Order Arithmetic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smorynski, C. (1977). The incompleteness theorems. In Barwise, J., editor. Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 821–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takeuti, G. (1987). Proof Theory (second edition). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (1991). The formalization of interpretability. Studia Logica, 50(1), 81–105.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (1992). An inside view of Exp. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 57(1), 131–165.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (1997). An overview of interpretability logic. In Kracht, M., de Rijke, M., and Wansing, H. editors. Advances in Modal Logic ’96. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 307–359.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2006). Categories of theories and interpretations. In Enayat, A., Kalantari, I., and Moniri, M., editors. Logic in Tehran, Vol. 26. Lecture Notes in Logic, La Jolla, CA: Association for Symbolic Logic, pp. 284–341.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2015). The interpretability of inconsistency: Feferman’s theorem and related results. Forthcoming in the Bulletin of Symbolic Logic.Google Scholar
Woodfield, A. (1991). Conceptions Mind , 100(4), 547–572.Google Scholar