The Absence of Multiple Universes of Discourse in the 1936 Tarski Consequence-Definition Paper

History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (4):359-374 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This paper discusses the history of the confusion and controversies over whether the definition of consequence presented in the 11-page 1936 Tarski consequence-definition paper is based on a monistic fixed-universe framework?like Begriffsschrift and Principia Mathematica. Monistic fixed-universe frameworks, common in pre-WWII logic, keep the range of the individual variables fixed as the class of all individuals. The contrary alternative is that the definition is predicated on a pluralistic multiple-universe framework?like the 1931 Gödel incompleteness paper. A pluralistic multiple-universe framework recognizes multiple universes of discourse serving as different ranges of the individual variables in different interpretations?as in post-WWII model theory. In the early 1960s, many logicians?mistakenly, as we show?held the ?contrary alternative? that Tarski 1936 had already adopted a Gödel-type, pluralistic, multiple-universe framework. We explain that Tarski had not yet shifted out of the monistic, Frege?Russell, fixed-universe paradigm. We further argue that between his Principia-influenced pre-WWII Warsaw period and his model-theoretic post-WWII Berkeley period, Tarski's philosophy underwent many other radical changes

Similar books and articles

The Absence of Multiple Universes of Discourse in the 1936 Tarski Consequence-Definition Paper.John Corcoran & José Miguel Sagüillo - 2018 - In Urszula Wybraniec-Skardowska & Ángel Garrido (eds.), The Lvov-Warsaw School. Past and Present. Cham, Switzerland: Springer- Birkhauser,. pp. 405-424.
The principle of wholistic reference.John Corcoran - 2004 - Manuscrito 27 (1):159-171.
Did Tarski commit “Tarski's fallacy”?G. Y. Sher - 1996 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (2):653-686.
Did Tarski commit "Tarski's fallacy"?Gila Sher - 1996 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 61 (2):653-686.
Reduction and Tarski's Definition of Logical Consequence.Jim Edwards - 2003 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44 (1):49-62.
A note on formality and logical consequence.Mario Gómez-Torrente - 2000 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (5):529-539.
What is Tarski's common concept of consequence?Ignacio Jané - 2006 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12 (1):1-42.


Added to PP

1,005 (#14,864)

6 months
152 (#29,234)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

John Corcoran
PhD: Johns Hopkins University; Last affiliation: University at Buffalo

References found in this work

Philosophy of logic.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1970 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Edited by Simon Blackburn & Keith Simmons.
Principles of mathematics.Bertrand Russell - 1931 - New York,: W.W. Norton & Company.
Logic, semantics, metamathematics.Alfred Tarski - 1956 - Oxford,: Clarendon Press. Edited by John Corcoran & J. H. Woodger.
Introduction to mathematical logic.Alonzo Church - 1944 - Princeton,: Princeton University Press. Edited by C. Truesdell.
Introduction to mathematical logic..Alonzo Church - 1944 - Princeton,: Princeton university press: London, H. Milford, Oxford university press. Edited by C. Truesdell.

View all 99 references / Add more references