On supervaluations in free logic

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 943-950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W. Woodruff

The concepts “classical valuation” and “supervaluation” were introduced by van Fraassen around 1966, to provide a semantic analysis of the then extant axiomatic systems of free logic. Consider an atomic sentenceand a “partial” model which fails to interpret c. Then (1) has no truth value in , nor doesWhile the valuelessness of (1) was found intuitively acceptable, that of (2) was not. Indeed, (2) and all other tautologies are theorems of free logic.Van Fraassen found a way to accommodate both intuitions. He interprets the unproblematic atomic sentences as usual, while “interpreting” those like (1) by simply assigning them a truth-value in arbitrary fashion. Then a truth-value for every sentence can be defined in the usual way; the result van Fraassen calls a “classical valuation” of the language. The arbitrary element in any given classical valuation is then eliminated by passage to the “supervaluation” over , which agrees with the classical valuations where they agree among themselves, and otherwise is undefined. In the supervaluation over , (1) is valueless but (2) true (since true on all classical valuations), as was required.There is a slight, but crucial oversimplification in the preceding account. Evaluation of the sentencerequires prior evaluation of the open formulaBut here mere assignment of truth-value is not enough; a whole set must be arbitrarily assigned as extension. The quantification over classical valuations involved in passage to the supervaluation thus involves an implicit quantification over subsets of the domain of : supervaluations are second order.

1966 ◽  
Vol 63 (17) ◽  
pp. 481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bas C. van Fraassen

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
TOBY MEADOWS

AbstractWe provide infinitary proof theories for three common semantic theories of truth: strong Kleene, van Fraassen supervaluation and Cantini supervaluation. The value of these systems is that they provide an easy method of proving simple facts about semantic theories. Moreover we shall show that they also give us a simpler understanding of the computational complexity of these definitions and provide a direct proof that the closure ordinal for Kripke’s definition is $\omega _1^{CK}$. This work can be understood as an effort to provide a proof-theoretic counterpart to Welch’s game-theoretic (Welch, 2009).


1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 530-542
Author(s):  
R. Michael Canjar

Throughout this paper, B will always be a Boolean algebra and Γ an ultrafilter on B. We use + and Σ for the Boolean join operation and · and Π for the Boolean meet.κ is always a regular cardinal. C(κ) is the full structure of κ, the structure with universe κ and whose functions and relations consist of all unitary functions and relations on κ. κB is the collection of all B-valued names for elements of κ. We use symbols f, g, h for members of κB. Formally an element f ∈ κB is a mapping κ → B with the properties that Σα∈κf(α) = 1B and that f(α) · f(β) = 0B whenever α ≠ β. We view f(α) as the Boolean-truth value indicating the extent to which the name f is equal to α, and we will hereafter write ∥f = α∥ for f(α). For every α ∈ κ there is a canonical name fα ∈ κB which has the property that ∥fα = α∥ = 1. Hereafter we identify α and fα.If B is a κ+-complete Boolean algebra and Γ is an ultrafilter on B, then we may define the Boolean ultraproduct C(κ)B/Γ in the following manner. If ϕ(x0, x1, …, xn) is a formula of Lκ, the language for C(κ) (which has symbols for all finitary functions and relations on κ), and f0, f1, …, fn−1 are elements of κB then we define the Boolean-truth value of ϕ(f0, f1, …, fn−1) as


1953 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-376
Author(s):  
Alan Rose

In 1930 Łukasiewicz (3) developed an ℵ0-valued prepositional calculus with two primitives called implication and negation. The truth-values were all rational numbers satisfying 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 1 being the designated truth-value. If the truth-values of P, Q, NP, CPQ are x, y, n(x), c(x, y) respectively, then


1968 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert K. Meyer ◽  
Karel Lambert

Interest has steadily increased among logicians and philosophers in versions of quantification theory which meet the following criteria: (1) no existence assumptions are made with respect to individual constants, and (2) theorems are valid in every domain including the empty domain. Logics meeting the former of these criteria are called free logics by Lambert and have been investigated in a series of papers by him and by van Fraassen, and by Leblanc and Thomason.1Although it is natural to impose (2) in the presence of (1), the criteria are independent.2 Hence we baptize logics which meet both criteria universally free.


1941 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 96-97
Author(s):  
Barkley Rosser

We refer to the axioms in Quine's book, Mathematical logic, New York, 1940.To prove the independence of *200, give xϵ α the truth value F in all cases and give (x)ϕ the same truth value as ϕ. Then clearly all formulas derivable from the other axioms besides *200 have the value T, whereas from *200 one can derive (∃x)(∃α)(xϵ α) which has the value F. This method of proving independence amounts to taking for a model a universe consisting of the single object Λ.For *201 we prove a contingent independence. That is, we prove that if Quine's system is consistent, then *201 is independent. The line of argument is the following. Suppose *201 can be derived from the other axioms. Let us replace xϵ α by throughout all the axioms. Then what *201 becomes can be derived from what the other axioms become. However what *201 becomes will lead to a contradiction in Quine's system whereas the rules which the other axioms become are valid in Quine's system.We now get down to technical details. Let us refer to the replacement of xϵ α by throughout an expression as an r replacement. Denote the result of performing an r replacement on ϕ by ϕr. Let Wα denoteThenNote that if x and y are variables, then by D10,


1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1399-1403
Author(s):  
Domenico Zambella

We denote by KP_ the fragment of set-theory containing the axioms of extensionality, pairing, union and foundation as well as the schemas of ∆0-comprehension and ∆0-collection, that is: Kripke-Platek set-theory (KP) with the axiom of foundation in place of the ∈-induction schema. The theory KP is obtained by adding to KP_ the schema of ∈-inductionUsing ∈-induction it is possible to prove the existence of the transi tive closure without appealing to the axiom of infinity (see, e.g., [1]). Vice versa, when a theory proves the existence of the transitive closure, some induction is immediately ensured (by foundation and comprehension). This is not true in general: e.g., the whole of Zermelo-Fraenkel set-theory without the axiom of infinity does not prove ∈-induction (in fact, it does not prove the existence of the transitive closure; see, e.g., [3]). Open-induction is the schema of ∈-induction restricted to open formulas. We prove the following theorem.KP_ proves open-induction.We reason in a fixed but arbitrary model of KP_ whom we refer to as the model. The language is extended with a name for every set in the model. We call this constants parameters. Let φ(x) be a satisfiable open-formula possibly depending on parameters and with no free variable but x. We show that φ(x) is satisfied by an ∈-minimal set, that is, a set a such that φ(a) and (∀x ∈ a) ¬φ(x). We assume that no ordinal satisfies φ(x), otherwise the existence of a ∈-minimal set follows from foundation and comprehension.


1979 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. P. Meldrum

In this paper, the centraliser of an arbitrary element of a wreath product is determined. One application of this is to find the breadth of a wreath product (Theorems 21 and 22), a problem which was raised in discussion with Dr. I. D. Macdonald. Another application is to groups generated by elements generating their own centralisers (Theorem 20).Let A and B be two groups. DefineAB = {f : B → A; f(b) = e for all but a finite number of elements of B} to be a group by defining the product pointwise


1953 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-241
Author(s):  
Alan Rose

The 2-valued calculus of non-contradiction of Dexter has been extended to 3-valued logic. The methods used were, however, too complicated to be capable of generalisation to m-valued logics. The object of the present paper is to give an alternative method of generalising Dexter's work to m-valued logics with one designated truth-value. The rule of procedure is generalised in the same way as before, but the deductive completeness of the system is proved by applying results of Rosser and Turquette. The system has an infinite set of primitive functions, written n(P1, P2, …, Pr) (r = 1,2, …). With the notation of Post, n(P1, P2, …, Pr) has the same truth-value as ~(P1 & P2 & … & Pr). Thus n(P) is Post's primitive ~P, and we can define & byWe use n2(P1, P2, …, Pr) as an abbreviation for n(n(P1, P2, …, Pr)); similarly for higher powers of n. But if we set up the 1-1 correspondence of truth-values i ↔ m−i+1, then & corresponds to ∨ and ~m−1 corresponds to ~. Hence the functional completeness of our system follows from a theorem of Post.We define the functions N(P), N(P, Q) byThus the truth-value of N(P) is undesignated if and only if the truth-value of P is designated, and the truth-value of N(P, Q) is undesignated if and only if the truth-values of P and Q are both designated.


1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 374-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. E. Forster

We shall be concerned here with weak axiomatic systems of set theory with a universal set. The language in which they are expressed is that of set theory—two primitive predicates, = and ϵ, and no function symbols (though some function symbols will be introduced by definitional abbreviation). All the theories will have stratified axioms only, and they will all have Ext (extensionality: (∀x)(∀y)(x = y· ↔ ·(∀z)(z ϵ x ↔ z ϵ y))). In fact, in addition to extensionality, they have only axioms saying that the universe is closed under certain set-theoretic operations, viz. all of the formand these will always include singleton, i.e., ι′x exists if x does (the iota notation for singleton, due to Russell and Whitehead, is used here to avoid confusion with {x: Φ}, set abstraction), and also x ∪ y, x ∩ y and − x (the complement of x). The system with these axioms is called NF2 in the literature (see [F]). The other axioms we consider will be those giving ⋃x, ⋂x, {y: y ⊆x} and {y: x ⊆ y}. We will frequently have occasion to bear in mind that 〈 V, ⊆ 〉 is a Boolean algebra in any theory extending NF2. There is no use of the axiom of choice at any point in this paper. Since the systems with which we will be concerned exhibit this feature of having, in addition to extensionality, only axioms stating that V is closed under certain operations, we will be very interested in terms of the theories in question. A T-term, for T such a theory, is a thing (with no free variables) built up from V or ∧ by means of the T-operations, which are of course the operations that the axioms of T say the universe is closed under.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document