structure for 'Truth'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

3. Truth / G. Axiomatic Truth / 1. Axiomatic Truth

[theories of truth built from a set of axioms]

35 ideas
Ockham had an early axiomatic account of truth [William of Ockham, by Halbach]
     Full Idea: Theories structurally very similar to axiomatic compositional theories of truth can be found in Ockham's 'Summa Logicae'.
     From: report of William of Ockham (Summa totius logicae [1323]) by Volker Halbach - Axiomatic Theories of Truth 3
If axioms and their implications have no contradictions, they pass my criterion of truth and existence [Hilbert]
     Full Idea: If the arbitrarily given axioms do not contradict each other with all their consequences, then they are true and the things defined by the axioms exist. For me this is the criterion of truth and existence.
     From: David Hilbert (Letter to Frege 29.12.1899 [1899]), quoted by R Kaplan / E Kaplan - The Art of the Infinite 2 'Mind'
     A reaction: If an axiom says something equivalent to 'fairies exist, but they are totally undetectable', this would seem to avoid contradiction with anything, and hence be true. Hilbert's idea sounds crazy to me. He developed full Formalism later.
We need an undefined term 'true' in the meta-language, specified by axioms [Tarski]
     Full Idea: We have to include the term 'true', or some other semantic term, in the list of undefined terms of the meta-language, and to express fundamental properties of the notion of truth in a series of axioms.
     From: Alfred Tarski (The Semantic Conception of Truth [1944], 10)
     A reaction: It sounds as if Tarski semantic theory gives truth for the object language, but then an axiomatic theory of truth is also needed for the metalanguage. Halbch and Horsten seem to want an axiomatic theory in the object language.
Tarski defined truth, but an axiomatisation can be extracted from his inductive clauses [Tarski, by Halbach]
     Full Idea: Tarski preferred a definition of truth, but from that an axiomatisation can be extracted. His induction clauses can be turned into axioms. Hence he opened the way to axiomatic theories of truth.
     From: report of Alfred Tarski (The Concept of Truth for Formalized Languages [1933]) by Volker Halbach - Axiomatic Theories of Truth 3
Tarski's had the first axiomatic theory of truth that was minimally adequate [Tarski, by Horsten]
     Full Idea: Tarski's work is the earliest axiomatic theory of truth that meets minimal adequacy conditions.
     From: report of Alfred Tarski (The Concept of Truth for Formalized Languages [1933]) by Leon Horsten - The Tarskian Turn 01.1
     A reaction: This shows a way in which Tarski gave a new direction to the study of truth. Subsequent theories have been 'stronger'.
Tarski thought axiomatic truth was too contingent, and in danger of inconsistencies [Tarski, by Davidson]
     Full Idea: Tarski preferred an explicit definition of truth to axioms. He says axioms have a rather accidental character, only a definition can guarantee the continued consistency of the system, and it keeps truth in harmony with physical science and physicalism.
     From: report of Alfred Tarski (works [1936]) by Donald Davidson - Truth and Predication 2 n2
     A reaction: Davidson's summary, gleaned from various sources in Tarski. A big challenge for modern axiom systems is to avoid inconsistency, which is extremely hard to do (given that set theory is not sure of having achieved it).
We can elucidate indefinable truth, but showing its relation to other concepts [Davidson]
     Full Idea: We can still say revealing things about truth, by relating it to other concepts like belief, desire, cause and action.
     From: Donald Davidson (The Folly of Trying to Define Truth [1999], p.21)
     A reaction: The trickiest concept to link it to is meaning. I think Davidson's view points to the Axiomatic account of truth, which flourished soon after Davidson wrote this. We can give rules for the correct use of 'true'.
Certain three-valued languages can contain their own truth predicates [Kripke, by Gupta]
     Full Idea: Kripke showed via a fixed-point argument that certain three-valued languages can contain their own truth predicates.
     From: report of Saul A. Kripke (Outline of a Theory of Truth [1975]) by Anil Gupta - Truth
     A reaction: [Gupta also cites Martin and Woodruff 1975] It is an odd paradox that truth can only be included if one adds a truth-value of 'neither true nor false'. The proposed three-valued system is 'strong Kleene logic'.
The Tarskian move to a metalanguage may not be essential for truth theories [Kripke, by Gupta]
     Full Idea: Kripke established that, contrary to the prevalent Tarskian dogma, attributions of truth do not always force a move to a metalanguage.
     From: report of Saul A. Kripke (Outline of a Theory of Truth [1975], 5.1) by Anil Gupta - Truth
     A reaction: [Gupta also cites Martin and Woodruff 1975]
We can get a substantive account of Tarski's truth by adding primitive 'true' to the object language [Etchemendy]
     Full Idea: Getting from a Tarskian definition of truth to a substantive account of the semantic properties of the object language may involve as little as the reintroduction of a primitive notion of truth.
     From: John Etchemendy (Tarski on Truth and Logical Consequence [1988], p.60), quoted by Donald Davidson - Truth and Predication 1
     A reaction: This is, I think, the first stage in modern developments of axiomatic truth theories. The first problem would be to make sure you haven't reintroduced the Liar Paradox. You need axioms to give behaviour to the 'true' predicate.
'Reflexive' truth theories allow iterations (it is T that it is T that p) [Horsten]
     Full Idea: A theory of truth is 'reflexive' if it allows us to prove truth-iterations ("It is true that it is true that so-and-so").
     From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 01.4)
Axiomatic approaches to truth avoid the regress problem of semantic theories [Horsten]
     Full Idea: The axiomatic approach to truth does not suffer from the regress problem.
     From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 02.3)
     A reaction: See Idea 15345 for the regress problem. The difficulty then seems to be that axiomatic approaches lack expressive power, so the hunt is on for a set of axioms which will do a decent job. Fun work, if you can cope with it.
The Naïve Theory takes the bi-conditionals as axioms, but it is inconsistent, and allows the Liar [Horsten]
     Full Idea: The Naïve Theory of Truth collects all the Tarski bi-conditionals of a language and takes them as axioms. But no consistent theory extending Peano arithmetic can prove all of them. It is inconsistent, and even formalises the liar paradox.
     From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 03.5.2)
     A reaction: [compressed] This looks to me like the account of truth that Davidson was working with, since he just seemed to be compiling bi-conditionals for tricky cases. (Wrong! He championed the Compositional Theory, Horsten p.71)
Axiomatic theories take truth as primitive, and propose some laws of truth as axioms [Horsten]
     Full Idea: In the axiomatic approach we take the truth predicate to express an irreducible, primitive notion. The meaning of the truth predicate is partially explicated by proposing certain laws of truth as basic principles, as axioms.
     From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 04.2)
     A reaction: Judging by Horsten's book, this is a rather fruitful line of enquiry, but it still seems like a bit of a defeat to take truth as 'primitive'. Presumably you could add some vague notion of correspondence as the background picture.
A good theory of truth must be compositional (as well as deriving biconditionals) [Horsten]
     Full Idea: Deriving many Tarski-biconditionals is not a sufficient condition for being a good theory of truth. A good theory of truth must in addition do justice to the compositional nature of truth.
     From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 06.1)
By adding truth to Peano Arithmetic we increase its power, so truth has mathematical content! [Horsten]
     Full Idea: It is surprising that just by adding to Peano Arithmetic principles concerning the notion of truth, we increase the mathematical strength of PA. So, contrary to expectations, the 'philosophical' notion of truth has real mathematical content.
     From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 06.4)
     A reaction: Horsten invites us to be really boggled by this. All of this is in the Compositional Theory TC. It enables a proof of the consistency of arithmetic (but still won't escape Gödel's Second).
An axiomatic theory needs to be of maximal strength, while being natural and sound [Horsten]
     Full Idea: The challenge is to find the arithmetically strongest axiomatical truth theory that is both natural and truth-theoretically sound.
     From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 07.7)
Axiomatic approaches avoid limiting definitions to avoid the truth predicate, and limited sizes of models [Horsten]
     Full Idea: An adequate definition of truth can only be given for the fragment of our language that does not contain the truth predicate. A model can never encompass the whole of the domain of discourse of our language. The axiomatic approach avoids these problems.
     From: Leon Horsten (The Tarskian Turn [2011], 10.1)
Axiomatic truth doesn't presuppose a truth-definition, though it could admit it at a later stage [Halbach]
     Full Idea: Choosing an axiomatic approach to truth might well be compatible with the view that truth is definable; the definability of truth is just not presupposed at the outset.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 1)
     A reaction: Is it possible that a successful axiomatisation is a successful definition?
The main semantic theories of truth are Kripke's theory, and revisions semantics [Halbach]
     Full Idea: Revision semantics is arguably the main competitor of Kripke's theory of truth among semantic truth theories. …In the former one may hope through revision to arrive at better and better models, ..sorting out unsuitable extensions of the truth predicate.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 14)
     A reaction: Halbach notes later that Kripke's theory (believe it or not) is considerably simpler than revision semantics.
Gödel numbering means a theory of truth can use Peano Arithmetic as its base theory [Halbach]
     Full Idea: Often syntactic objects are identified with their numerical codes. …Expressions of a countable formal language can be coded in the natural numbers. This allows a theory of truth to use Peano Arithmetic (with its results) as a base theory.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 2)
     A reaction: The numbering system is the famous device invented by Gödel for his great proof of incompleteness. This idea is a key to understanding modern analytic philosophy. It is the bridge which means philosophical theories can be treated mathematically.
Truth axioms need a base theory, because that is where truth issues arise [Halbach]
     Full Idea: Considering the truth axioms in the absence of a base theory is not very sensible because characteristically truth theoretic reasoning arises from the interplay of the truth axioms with the base theory.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 21.2)
     A reaction: The base theory usually seems to be either Peano arithmetic or set theory. We might say that introverted thought (e.g. in infants) has little use for truth; it is when you think about the world that truth becomes a worry.
We know a complete axiomatisation of truth is not feasible [Halbach]
     Full Idea: In the light of incompleteness phenomena, one should not expect a categorical axiomatisation of truth to be feasible, but this should not keep one from studying axiomatic theories of truth (or of arithmetic).
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 3)
     A reaction: This, of course, is because of Gödel's famous results. It is important to be aware in this field that there cannot be a dream of a final theory, so we are just seeing what can be learned about truth.
To axiomatise Tarski's truth definition, we need a binary predicate for his 'satisfaction' [Halbach]
     Full Idea: If the clauses of Tarski's definition of truth are turned into axioms (as Davidson proposed) then a primitive binary predicate symbol for satisfaction is needed, as Tarski defined truth in terms of satisfaction. Standard language has a unary predicate.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 5.2)
A theory is 'conservative' if it adds no new theorems to its base theory [Halbach, by PG]
     Full Idea: A truth theory is 'conservative' if the addition of the truth predicate does not add any new theorems to the base theory.
     From: report of Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 6 Df 6.6) by PG - Db (ideas)
     A reaction: Halbach presents the definition more formally, and this is my attempt at getting it into plain English. Halbach uses Peano Arithmetic as his base theory, but set theory is also sometimes used.
The Tarski Biconditional theory TB is Peano Arithmetic, plus truth, plus all Tarski bi-conditionals [Halbach]
     Full Idea: The truth theory TB (Tarski Biconditional) is all the axioms of Peano Arithmetic, including all instances of the induction schema with the truth predicate, plus all the sentences of the form T[φ] ↔ φ.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 7)
     A reaction: The biconditional formula is the famous 'snow is white' iff snow is white. The truth of the named sentence is equivalent to asserting the sentence. This is a typed theory of truth, and it is conservative over PA.
Compositional Truth CT has the truth of a sentence depending of the semantic values of its constituents [Halbach]
     Full Idea: In the typed Compositional Truth theory CT, it is compositional because the truth of a sentence depends on the semantic values of the constituents of that sentence.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 8)
     A reaction: [axioms on p. 65 of Halbach]
CT proves PA consistent, which PA can't do on its own, so CT is not conservative over PA [Halbach]
     Full Idea: Compositional Truth CT proves the consistency of Peano arithmetic, which is not provable in Peano arithmetic by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. Hence the theory CT is not conservative over Peano arithmetic.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 8.6)
Theories of truth are 'typed' (truth can't apply to sentences containing 'true'), or 'type-free' [Halbach]
     Full Idea: I sort theories of truth into the large families of 'typed' and 'type-free'. Roughly, typed theories prohibit a truth predicate's application to sentences with occurrences of that predicate, and one cannot prove the truth of sentences containing 'true'.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], II Intro)
     A reaction: The problem sentence the typed theories are terrified of is the Liar Sentence. Typing produces a hierarchy of languages, referring down to the languages below them.
Axiomatic theories of truth need a weak logical framework, and not a strong metatheory [Halbach]
     Full Idea: Axiomatic theories of truth can be presented within very weak logical frameworks which require very few resources, and avoid the need for a strong metalanguage and metatheory.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2005 ver) [2005], 1)
Instead of a truth definition, add a primitive truth predicate, and axioms for how it works [Halbach]
     Full Idea: The axiomatic approach does not presuppose that truth can be defined. Instead, a formal language is expanded by a new primitive predicate of truth, and axioms for that predicate are then laid down.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2005 ver) [2005], 1)
     A reaction: Idea 15647 explains why Halbach thinks the definition route is no good.
Should axiomatic truth be 'conservative' - not proving anything apart from implications of the axioms? [Halbach]
     Full Idea: If truth is not explanatory, truth axioms should not allow proof of new theorems not involving the truth predicate. It is hence said that axiomatic truth should be 'conservative' - not implying further sentences beyond what the axioms can prove.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2005 ver) [2005], 1.3)
     A reaction: [compressed]
If truth is defined it can be eliminated, whereas axiomatic truth has various commitments [Halbach]
     Full Idea: If truth can be explicitly defined, it can be eliminated, whereas an axiomatized notion of truth may bring all kinds of commitments.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2005 ver) [2005], 1.3)
     A reaction: The general principle that anything which can be defined can be eliminated (in an abstract theory, presumably, not in nature!) raises interesting questions about how many true theories there are which are all equivalent to one another.
A natural theory of truth plays the role of reflection principles, establishing arithmetic's soundness [Halbach/Leigh]
     Full Idea: If a natural theory of truth is added to Peano Arithmetic, it is not necessary to add explicity global reflection principles to assert soundness, as the truth theory proves them. Truth theories thus prove soundess, and allows its expression.
     From: Halbach,V/Leigh,G.E. (Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2013 ver) [2013], 1.2)
     A reaction: This seems like a big attraction of axiomatic theories of truth for students of metamathematics.
If deflationary truth is not explanatory, truth axioms should be 'conservative', proving nothing new [Halbach/Leigh]
     Full Idea: If truth does not have any explanatory force, as some deflationists claim, the axioms of truth should not allow us to prove any new theorems that do not involve the truth predicate. That is, a deflationary axiomatisation of truth should be 'conservative'.
     From: Halbach,V/Leigh,G.E. (Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2013 ver) [2013], 1.3)
     A reaction: So does truth have 'explanatory force'? These guys are interested in explaining theorems of arithmetic, but I'm more interested in real life. People do daft things because they have daft beliefs. Logic should be neutral, but truth has values?