Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

From Closure Games to Strong Kleene Truth

Stefan Wintein

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

In this paper, we study the method of closure games, a game-theoretic valuation method for languages of self-referential truth developed by the author. We prove two theorems which jointly establish that the method of closure games characterizes all 3- and 4-valued strong Kleene fixed points in a novel, informative manner. Among others, we also present closure games which induce the minimal and maximal intrinsic fixed point of the strong Kleene schema.

Article information

Source
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, Volume 57, Number 2 (2016), 153-179.

Dates
Received: 19 May 2011
Accepted: 9 October 2013
First available in Project Euclid: 11 January 2016

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1452520241

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1215/00294527-3346590

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3482740

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1384.03117

Subjects
Primary: 03AXX 03BXX
Secondary: 03A05: Philosophical and critical {For philosophy of mathematics, see also 00A30} 03B50: Many-valued logic

Keywords
Self-referential truth Kripke’s theory of truth game-theoretic semantics

Citation

Wintein, Stefan. From Closure Games to Strong Kleene Truth. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 57 (2016), no. 2, 153--179. doi:10.1215/00294527-3346590. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1452520241


Export citation

References

  • [1] Fitting, M., “Notes on the mathematical aspects of Kripke’s theory of truth,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 27 (1986), pp. 75–88.
  • [2] Gupta, A., “Truth and paradox,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 11 (1982), pp. 1–60.
  • [3] Hintikka, J., The Principles of Mathematics Revisited, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
  • [4] Kripke, S., “Outline of a theory of truth,” Journal of Philosophy, vol. 72 (1975), pp. 690–716.
  • [5] Martin, D., “Revision and its rivals,” Philosophical Issues, vol. 8 (1997), pp. 407–18.
  • [6] Visser, A., “Four valued semantics and the Liar,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 13 (1984), pp. 181–212.
  • [7] Welch, P., “Games for truth,” The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 15 (2009), pp. 410–427.
  • [8] Wintein, S., Playing with Truth, Optima Grafische Communicatie, Rotterdam, 2012.
  • [9] Wintein, S., “On the strict-tolerant conception of truth,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 92 (2014), pp. 71–90.
  • [10] Wintein, S., “Assertoric semantics and the computational power of self-referential truth,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 41 (2012), pp. 317–345.
  • [11] Woodruff, P. W., “Paradox, truth and logic, I: Paradox and truth,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 13 (1984), pp. 213–232.