David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studia Logica 92 (2):215 - 240 (2009)
What is the fundamental insight behind truth-functionality ? When is a logic interpretable by way of a truth-functional semantics? To address such questions in a satisfactory way, a formal definition of truth-functionality from the point of view of abstract logics is clearly called for. As a matter of fact, such a definition has been available at least since the 70s, though to this day it still remains not very widely well-known. A clear distinction can be drawn between logics characterizable through: (1) genuinely finite-valued truth-tabular semantics; (2) no finite-valued but only an infinite-valued truthtabular semantics; (3) no truth-tabular semantics at all. Any of those logics, however, can in principle be characterized through non-truth-functional valuation semantics, at least as soon as their associated consequence relations respect the usual tarskian postulates. So, paradoxical as that might seem at first, it turns out that truth-functional logics may be adequately characterized by non-truth-functional semantics . Now, what feature of a given logic would guarantee it to dwell in class (1) or in class (2), irrespective of its circumstantial semantic characterization?
|Keywords||Abstract logics formal semantics truth-functionality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Alfred Tarski (2002). On the Concept of Following Logically. History and Philosophy of Logic 23 (3):155-196.
Newton C. A. Da Costa (1974). On the Theory of Inconsistent Formal Systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 15 (4):497-510.
Timothy Smiley (1996). Rejection. Analysis 56 (1):1–9.
Joao Marcos (2008). Possible-Translations Semantics for Some Weak Classically-Based Paraconsistent Logics. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 18 (1):7-28.
Citations of this work BETA
Sara L. Uckelman, Jesse Alama & Aleks Knoks (2014). A Curious Dialogical Logic and its Composition Problem. Journal of Philosophical Logic 43 (6):1065-1100.
Similar books and articles
D. Hyde (1997). From Heaps and Gaps to Heaps of Gluts. Mind 106 (424):641-660.
Nicholas J. J. Smith (2012). Many-Valued Logics. In Gillian Russell & Delia Graff Fara (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. Routledge 636--51.
J. Michael Dunn (2000). Partiality and its Dual. Studia Logica 66 (1):5-40.
Ross Thomas Brady (2010). Free Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (5):511 - 529.
Ned Block (1988). Functional Role and Truth Conditions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 61:157-181.
Stefano Aguzzoli, Matteo Bianchi & Vincenzo Marra (2009). A Temporal Semantics for Basic Logic. Studia Logica 92 (2):147 - 162.
Josep Maria Font (2009). Taking Degrees of Truth Seriously. Studia Logica 91 (3):383 - 406.
C. Caleiro, W. A. Carnielli, M. E. Coniglio, A. Sernadas & C. Sernadas (2003). Fibring Non-Truth-Functional Logics: Completeness Preservation. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (2):183-211.
Added to index2009-07-11
Total downloads79 ( #53,043 of 1,796,210 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #98,157 of 1,796,210 )
How can I increase my downloads?