14454 | An argument 'satisfies' a function φx if φa is true [Russell] |
19184 | The best truth definition involves other semantic notions, like satisfaction (relating terms and objects) [Tarski] |
19191 | Specify satisfaction for simple sentences, then compounds; true sentences are satisfied by all objects [Tarski] |
18811 | Tarski uses sentential functions; truly assigning the objects to variables is what satisfies them [Rumfitt on Tarski] |
15365 | We can define the truth predicate using 'true of' (satisfaction) for variables and some objects [Horsten on Tarski] |
19145 | We can explain truth in terms of satisfaction - but also explain satisfaction in terms of truth [Davidson] |
19146 | Satisfaction is a sort of reference, so maybe we can define truth in terms of reference? [Davidson] |
19175 | Tarski gave axioms for satisfaction, then derived its explicit definition, which led to defining truth [Davidson] |
19174 | Axioms spell out sentence satisfaction. With no free variables, all sequences satisfy the truths [Davidson] |
10817 | Tarski just reduced truth to some other undefined semantic notions [Field,H] |
19314 | For physicalism, reduce truth to satisfaction, then define satisfaction as physical-plus-logic [Kirkham] |
19319 | If one sequence satisfies a sentence, they all do [Kirkham] |
19316 | Insight: don't use truth, use a property which can be compositional in complex quantified sentence [Kirkham] |
19318 | A 'sequence' of objects is an order set of them [Kirkham] |
13504 | Truth for sentences is satisfaction of formulae; for sentences, either all sequences satisfy it (true) or none do [Hart,WD] |
13634 | Satisfaction is 'truth in a model', which is a model of 'truth' [Shapiro] |
15410 | Truth only applies to closed formulas, but we need satisfaction of open formulas to define it [Burgess] |
19128 | If a language cannot name all objects, then satisfaction must be used, instead of unary truth [Halbach/Leigh] |