Analysis 63 (4):292–297 (2003)
|Abstract||Tarski’s Indefinability Theorem can be generalized so that it applies to many-valued languages. We introduce a notion of strong semantic self-representation applicable to any (sufficiently rich) interpreted many-valued language L. A sufficiently rich interpreted many-valued language L is SSSR just in case it has a function symbol n(x) such that, for any f Sent(L), the denotation of the term n(“f”) in L is precisely ||f||L, the semantic value of f in L. By a simple diagonal construction (finding a sentence l such that l is equivalent to n(“l”) T), it is shown that no such language strongly represents itself semantically. Hence, no such language can be its own metalanguage|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nicolas Guzy (2006). 0-D-Valued Fields. Journal of Symbolic Logic 71 (2):639 - 660.
Beata Konikowska (1990). A Two-Valued Logic for Reasoning About Different Types of Consequence in Kleene's Three-Valued Logic. Studia Logica 49 (4):541 - 555.
Tran Cao Son, Phan Huy Tu & Xin Zhang (2005). Reasoning About Sensing Actions in Domains with Multi-Valued Fluents. Studia Logica 79 (1):135 - 160.
A. Avron (2009). Multi-Valued Semantics: Why and How. Studia Logica 92 (2):163 - 182.
Gilbert T. Null (2007). Two-Valued Logics of Intentionality: Temporality, Truth, Modality, and Identity. [REVIEW] Husserl Studies 23 (3):187-228.
A. S. Karpenko (1983). Factor Semantics Forn-Valued Logics. Studia Logica 42 (2-3):179 - 185.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #85,899 of 722,744 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,744 )
How can I increase my downloads?