This is a defense and extension of Stephen Yablo's claim that self-reference is completely inessential to the liar paradox. An infinite sequence of sentences of the form 'None of these subsequent sentences are true' generates the same instability in assigning truth values. I argue Yablo's technique of substituting infinity for self-reference applies to all so-called 'self-referential' paradoxes. A representative sample is provided which includes counterparts of the preface paradox, Pseudo-Scotus's validity paradox, the Knower, and other enigmas of the genre. I (...) rebut objections that Yablo's paradox is not a genuine liar by constructing a sequence of liars that blend into Yablo's paradox. I rebut objections that Yablo's liar has hidden self-reference with a distinction between attributive and referential self-reference and appeals to Gregory Chaitin's algorithmic information theory. The paper concludes with comments on the mystique of self-reference. (shrink)

A formal theory of truth, alternative to tarski's 'orthodox' theory, based on truth-value gaps, is presented. the theory is proposed as a fairly plausible model for natural language and as one which allows rigorous definitions to be given for various intuitive concepts, such as those of 'grounded' and 'paradoxical' sentences.

If we try to evaluate the sentence on line 1 we ¯nd ourselves going in an unending cycle. For this reason alone we may conclude that the sentence is not true. Moreover we are driven to this conclusion by an elementary argument: If the sentence is true then what it asserts is true, but what it asserts is that the sentence on line 1 is not true. Consequently the sentence on line 1 is not true. But when we write this (...) true conclusion on line 2 we ¯nd ourselves repeating the very same sentence. It seems that we are unable to deny the truth of the sentence on line 1 without asserting it at the same time. (shrink)

What is truth. Paul Horwich advocates the controversial theory of minimalism, that is that the nature of truth is entirely captured in the trivial fact that each proposition specifies its own condition for being true, and that truth is therefore an entirely mundane and unpuzzling concept. The first edition of Truth, published in 1980, established itself as the best account of minimalism and as an excellent introduction to the debate for students. For this new edition, Horwich has refined and developed (...) his treatment of the subject in the light of subsequent discussions, while preserving the distinctive format that made the earlier edition so successful. (shrink)

) Modern theories of formal truth have traditionally been used to analyse semantic paradoxes, but their field of application goes well beyond this field to include ontological issues, Godel′s incompleteness phenomena, and the relationship between object language, meta language and reduction. All these fields have had new light sched upon them by studies on the theories of truth. In providing a first summary of the various approaches in this field the author documents their respective advantages and areas of application. The (...) emphasis here is on the axiomatic theories of truth developed by Cantini, Feferman, Friedman and the autor himself, which over the past ten years have increasingly gained ground over the semantic theories of Kripke et al. The book describes the way in which many of the aciomatic proposals are built up and expand on semantic theories. This ist the first time that the results in this field have been made accessible to readers in their larger context. The book deals in detail with the technical aspects and so is ideal as a point of entry into the vast array of literature on the metamathematics of this field. A key objective of the book is to extablish a connection between the latest theories of truth and the older constructions elaborated by Tarski. He made a number of important findings about the formal properties of truth back in the 1930s, but some of his constructions are now considered to be obsolete. Tarski′s views appear in a new light in this book since some of his ideas have only been formulated in recent years. (shrink)

We present a theory VF of partial truth over Peano arithmetic and we prove that VF and ID 1 have the same arithmetical content. The semantics of VF is inspired by van Fraassen's notion of supervaluation.

This book is about one of the most baffling of all paradoxes – the famous Liar paradox. Suppose we say: 'We are lying now'. Then if we are lying, we are telling the truth; and if we are telling the truth we are lying. This paradox is more than an intriguing puzzle, since it involves the concept of truth. Thus any coherent theory of truth must deal with the Liar. Keith Simmons discusses the solutions proposed by medieval philosophers and offers (...) his own solutions and in the process assesses other attempts to solve the paradox. Unlike such attempts, Simmons' 'singularity' solution does not abandon classical semantics and does not appeal to the kind of hierarchical view found in Barwise's and Etchemendy's The Liar. Moreover, Simmons' solution resolves the vexing problem of semantic universality – the problem of whether there are semantic concepts beyond the expressive reach of a natural language such as English. (shrink)

In this rigorous investigation into the logic of truth Anil Gupta and Nuel Belnap explain how the concept of truth works in both ordinary and pathological..

The complexity of the set of truths of arithmetic is determined for various theories of truth deriving from Kripke and from Gupta and Herzberger.

Consider the following denumerably infinite sequence of sentences: (s1) For all k > 1, sk is not true. (s2) For all k > 2, sk is not true. (s3) For all k > 3, sk is not true.

Hailed by the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society as "easy to use and a pleasure to read," this research monograph is recommended for students and professionals interested in model theory and definability theory. The sole prerequisite is a familiarity with the basics of logic, model theory, and set theory. 1974 edition.

The question, what a given statement is “about,” often occurs in philosophic discussion. I shall use this question in the hope of illustrating how a relatively simple application of symbolic logic can clarify a problem which might otherwise turn into a maze of complications.