Hubbry Logo
Logical truthLogical truthMain
Open search
Logical truth
Community hub
Logical truth
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Logical truth
Logical truth
Logical truth
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Logical truth is one of the most fundamental concepts in logic. Broadly speaking, a logical truth is a statement which is true regardless of the truth or falsity of its constituent propositions. In other words, a logical truth is a statement which is not only true, but one which is true under all interpretations of its logical components (other than its logical constants). Thus, logical truths such as "if p, then p" can be considered tautologies. Logical truths are thought to be the simplest case of statements which are analytically true (or in other words, true by definition). All of philosophical logic can be thought of as providing accounts of the nature of logical truth, as well as logical consequence.[1]

Logical truths are generally considered to be necessarily true. This is to say that they are such that no situation could arise in which they could fail to be true. The view that logical statements are necessarily true is sometimes treated as equivalent to saying that logical truths are true in all possible worlds. However, the question of which statements are necessarily true remains the subject of continued debate.

Treating logical truths, analytic truths, and necessary truths as equivalent, logical truths can be contrasted with facts (which can also be called contingent claims or synthetic claims). Contingent truths are true in this world, but could have turned out otherwise (in other words, they are false in at least one possible world). Logically true propositions such as "If p and q, then p" and "All married people are married" are logical truths because they are true due to their internal structure and not because of any facts of the world (whereas "All married people are happy", even if it were true, could not be true solely in virtue of its logical structure).

Rationalist philosophers have suggested that the existence of logical truths cannot be explained by empiricism, because they hold that it is impossible to account for our knowledge of logical truths on empiricist grounds. Empiricists commonly respond to this objection by arguing that logical truths (which they usually deem to be mere tautologies), are analytic and thus do not purport to describe the world. The latter view was notably defended by the logical positivists in the early 20th century.

Logical truths and analytic truths

[edit]
Main article: Analytic–synthetic distinction

Logical truths, being analytic statements, do not contain any information about any matters of fact. Other than logical truths, there is also a second class of analytic statements, typified by "no bachelor is married". The characteristic of such a statement is that it can be turned into a logical truth by substituting synonyms for synonyms salva veritate. "No bachelor is married" can be turned into "no unmarried man is married" by substituting "unmarried man" for its synonym "bachelor".[citation needed]

In his essay Two Dogmas of Empiricism, the philosopher W. V. O. Quine called into question the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. It was this second class of analytic statements that caused him to note that the concept of analyticity itself stands in need of clarification, because it seems to depend on the concept of synonymy, which stands in need of clarification. In his conclusion, Quine rejects that logical truths are necessary truths. Instead he posits that the truth-value of any statement can be changed, including logical truths, given a re-evaluation of the truth-values of every other statement in one's complete theory.[citation needed]

Truth values and tautologies

[edit]
Main article: Tautology (logic)

Considering different interpretations of the same statement leads to the notion of truth value. The simplest approach to truth values means that the statement may be "true" in one case, but "false" in another. In one sense of the term tautology, it is any type of formula or proposition which turns out to be true under any possible interpretation of its terms (may also be called a valuation or assignment depending upon the context). This is synonymous to logical truth.[citation needed]

However, the term tautology is also commonly used to refer to what could more specifically be called truth-functional tautologies. Whereas a tautology or logical truth is true solely because of the logical terms it contains in general (e.g. "every", "some", and "is"), a truth-functional tautology is true because of the logical terms it contains which are logical connectives (e.g. "or", "and", and "nor"). Not all logical truths are tautologies of such a kind.[citation needed]

Logical truth and logical constants

[edit]
Main article: Logical constant

Logical constants, including logical connectives and quantifiers, can all be reduced conceptually to logical truth. For instance, two statements or more are logically incompatible if, and only if their conjunction is logically false. One statement logically implies another when it is logically incompatible with the negation of the other. A statement is logically true if, and only if its opposite is logically false. The opposite statements must contradict one another. In this way all logical connectives can be expressed in terms of preserving logical truth. The logical form of a sentence is determined by its semantic or syntactic structure and by the placement of logical constants. Logical constants determine whether a statement is a logical truth when they are combined with a language that limits its meaning. Therefore, until it is determined how to make a distinction between all logical constants regardless of their language, it is impossible to know the complete truth of a statement or argument.[2]

Logical truth and rules of inference

[edit]

The concept of logical truth is closely connected to the concept of a rule of inference.[3]

Logical truth and logical positivism

[edit]

Logical positivism was a movement in the early 20th century that tried to reduce the reasoning processes of science to pure logic. Among other things, the logical positivists claimed that any proposition that is not empirically verifiable is neither true nor false, but nonsense.[citation needed]

Non-classical logics

[edit]
Main article: Non-classical logic

Non-classical logic is the name given to formal systems which differ in a significant way from standard logical systems such as propositional and predicate logic. There are several ways in which this is done, including by way of extensions, deviations, and variations. The aim of these departures is to make it possible to construct different models of logical consequence and logical truth.[4]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Logical truth

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Logical truth is a fundamental concept in formal logic referring to a sentence or that is true under every possible interpretation or model, meaning it cannot be false regardless of the assignment of meanings to its non-logical components. This notion ensures that such truths hold necessarily due to their logical structure alone, independent of empirical facts about the world. In the model-theoretic framework pioneered by , a sentence is logically true if it is satisfied in every structure or sequence that makes the premises true, effectively treating it as a of the of premises. The development of logical truth as a precise concept emerged in the early 20th century amid efforts to formalize semantics and avoid paradoxes in truth theories. Tarski's seminal work on in 1936 provided the model-theoretic foundation, defining logical truth as preservation of truth across all models where the antecedent conditions are met, which distinguishes it from contingent or factual truths. This approach contrasts with proof-theoretic views, where logical truths are those provable from axioms using inference rules, highlighting ongoing debates about whether logical truth is best captured semantically or syntactically. Key characteristics of logical truths include their necessity—they are true in all possible worlds or configurations—and their role in distinguishing tautologies, which arise solely from truth-functional connectives like and conjunction in propositional logic. For example, the sentence "Either it is raining or it is not raining" is a logical truth because it holds in every interpretation, verifiable via truth tables that exhaust all combinations of truth values. In predicate logic, logical truths extend to quantified statements, such as "All objects are identical to themselves," true due to the universal quantifier and identity predicate across all domains. Philosophically, logical truths raise questions about their metaphysical status, with some interpretations linking them to genuine possibilities of the world rather than mere linguistic conventions. They underpin and are central to distinguishing logical from non-logical vocabulary in semantic theories.

Fundamentals

Definition

A logical truth is a that holds true in every or interpretation, relying solely on its logical rather than any empirical or contingent content. This independence from specific facts about the world distinguishes logical truths from other kinds of statements, ensuring their validity stems purely from the form of reasoning involved. Formally, in the context of , a sentence φ is a logical truth if it is true in every model, where a model is a consisting of a non-empty domain and an interpretation of the language's symbols. This model-theoretic account captures the idea that logical truths are preserved across all possible assignments of meanings to non-logical terms, making them necessarily valid. The concept of logical truth traces its origins to Aristotle's syllogistic logic, where certain argument forms were recognized as invariably yielding true conclusions from true premises, independent of the particular terms used. This idea was formalized in modern predicate logic by and , who developed systems to express general logical relations and truths through quantifiers and predicates. For instance, the statement "All bachelors are unmarried" might appear logical but depends on the semantic connection between its terms; true logical truths, by contrast, depend only on form, such as the proposition ∀x(P(x)→P(x))\forall x (P(x) \to P(x)), which is valid regardless of what PP denotes. Tautologies in propositional logic serve as simpler instances of such form-based truths.

Distinction from Other Truths

Logical truths differ fundamentally from contingent truths, which are propositions that obtain in some possible worlds but not in all others, relying on specific empirical circumstances rather than holding universally. For instance, the statement "It is raining now" exemplifies a contingent truth, as its veracity depends on observable facts at a particular time and place, and it could be false in alternative scenarios without contradiction. In contrast, logical truths possess necessity, remaining true irrespective of empirical contingencies or variations in the world. This distinction extends to factual truths, which are typically contingent and verified through , requiring sensory evidence to confirm their status. Logical truths, however, bypass such empirical validation, deriving their certainty from the structure of reasoning itself rather than observation of particular events or states of affairs. further delineates logical truths by aligning them closely with analytic judgments, where the predicate is contained within the subject , yielding truths that are informative only in an explicative sense without adding new content. Synthetic truths, by comparison, are ampliative, introducing predicates not inherent in the subject and thus providing genuinely new knowledge, often grounded in empirical relations as per Kant's framework. While logical truths overlap with the analytic category, they emphasize formal necessity over mere definitional inclusion. The necessity of logical truths manifests a priori, known independently of and immune to revision by sensory data, in opposition to factual truths established through empirical testing. This a priori character underscores their non-empirical foundation, ensuring invariance across all conceivable contexts. partially challenges this framework by treating logical truths as a of analytic truths but questioning the sharpness of the analytic-synthetic divide, suggesting that no clear boundary separates meaning-based truths from those informed by .

Classical Logic

Tautologies and Truth Values

In classical propositional logic, a tautology is defined as a that evaluates to true for every possible assignment of truth values to its atomic propositions. This property ensures that the formula's truth depends solely on its logical structure, independent of the specific content of the propositions involved. Tautologies serve as the core exemplars of logical truths within this framework, capturing statements that are necessarily true due to the meanings of logical connectives. Classical propositional logic employs binary truth values: true (T) and false (F). These values are assigned to atomic propositions, and compound formulas are evaluated recursively using truth-functional connectives such as (¬), conjunction (∧), disjunction (∨), and implication (→). To determine if a formula is a tautology, one constructs a that exhaustively lists all possible combinations of truth values for the atomic propositions and computes the resulting value for the entire formula. A classic example is the , expressed as p∨¬pp \lor \neg p. The for this formula is as follows:
pp¬p\neg pp∨¬pp \lor \neg p
TFT
FTT
This table demonstrates that the formula is true in both possible cases, confirming its status as a tautology. Tautologies are distinguished from other types of formulas based on their behavior across truth assignments. A contradiction, such as p∧¬pp \land \neg p, evaluates to false in every case, making it necessarily untrue. In contrast, a contingent formula, like p∧qp \land q, is true for some assignments (e.g., both T) but false for others (e.g., p = T, q = F), depending on the specific truth values. From a semantic perspective, a logical truth in propositional logic is a special case of semantic entailment, where the formula is entailed by the of premises—meaning no assignment can falsify it without contradicting the logical structure itself. This entailment arises from the fixed interpretations of logical constants, which enable the tautological form without reliance on non-logical content.

Logical Constants

In formal logic, logical constants are the fixed symbols that define the structural features responsible for the necessity of logical truths, distinguishing them from non-logical vocabulary whose interpretations can vary without affecting the . In , the standard logical constants comprise the truth-functional connectives— (¬), conjunction (∧), disjunction (∨), material implication (→), and biconditional (↔)—along with the universal quantifier (∀) and the existential quantifier (∃). These symbols operate uniformly across all models, preserving truth values based on their semantic definitions: for instance, ¬φ is true φ is false, while ∀x φ(x) holds if φ(x) is true for every element in the domain under a given interpretation. The role of logical constants in guaranteeing logical truth stems from their invariance under reinterpretations of non-logical elements, such as predicates (e.g., P denoting "is even") or individual constants (e.g., c denoting a specific number). Alfred formalized this through the invariance criterion, arguing that a constant qualifies as logical if its extension remains unchanged by any of the domain's elements, ensuring that built from these constants are true in all structures regardless of how extra-logical terms are assigned meanings. This criterion underpins the semantic definition of , where a follows from solely due to the arrangement of logical constants, not the content of predicates. For example, the ∀x (P(x) → P(x)) exemplifies a logical truth: its validity arises from the quantifier's scope and implication's semantics, holding true irrespective of whether P interprets as "is mortal" or any other unary predicate. Debates persist over precisely which symbols merit inclusion as logical constants, particularly the identity predicate (=), which asserts indiscernibility between objects. Proponents argue for its logical status based on permutation invariance, as the relation {⟨a, b⟩ | a = b} is preserved under domain rearrangements, aligning with Tarski's criterion and enabling essential inferences like distinguishing domains with at least two elements via ∃x∃y (x ≠ y). Critics, however, contend that identity introduces substantive metaphysical commitments about objects, failing harmony tests in inferentialist frameworks where introduction and elimination rules do not balance without invoking non-logical coordination of variables; some systems thus treat = as a non-logical predicate to maintain logic's topic-neutrality. These discussions highlight the tension between semantic invariance and the boundaries of pure logical structure, influencing extensions beyond classical first-order logic.

Rules of Inference

In formal systems of classical logic, rules of inference provide the mechanisms for deriving new statements from existing ones while preserving truth. These rules ensure that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true, thereby maintaining the validity of logical derivations. Key examples include , which allows inference of ψ\psi from ϕ→ψ\phi \rightarrow \psi and ϕ\phi, and , which permits replacing a universally quantified variable with a specific term to obtain an instance of the quantified statement. Logical truth can be understood syntactically as a theorem derivable from axioms using these rules of inference, or semantically as a statement true in all models of the system. In classical logic, the syntactic approach emphasizes formal proofs constructed step-by-step via inference rules applied to axioms and prior lines, while the semantic view assesses truth based on interpretations. The equivalence between these notions is established through soundness (every provable statement is semantically valid) and completeness (every semantically valid statement is provable). Gödel's completeness theorem demonstrates that for first-order classical logic, all logical truths—formulas true in every model—are indeed provable using a suitable set of axioms and rules of inference, such as those in Hilbert-style or systems. A concrete illustration is the natural deduction proof of the tautology (p→q)→(¬q→¬p)(p \rightarrow q) \rightarrow (\neg q \rightarrow \neg p), which exemplifies how rules like implication elimination (), negation introduction, and implication introduction derive logical truths:
  1. Assume p→qp \rightarrow q (hypothesis).
  2. Assume ¬q\neg q (hypothesis).
  3. Assume pp (hypothesis for subproof).
  4. From 1 and 3, infer qq (implication elimination).
  5. From 2 and 4, infer contradiction (negation elimination).
  6. Discharge 3, infer ¬p\neg p (negation introduction).
  7. Discharge 2, infer ¬q→¬p\neg q \rightarrow \neg p (implication introduction).
  8. Discharge 1, infer (p→q)→(¬q→¬p)(p \rightarrow q) \rightarrow (\neg q \rightarrow \neg p) (implication introduction).
This derivation relies solely on the rules to establish the formula as a without reference to truth tables.

Philosophical Perspectives

Analytic Truths

Analytic truths are propositions that are true solely by virtue of the meanings of their constituent terms, without requiring empirical verification. For instance, the statement "All are unmarried men" is analytic because its truth follows directly from "bachelor" as an unmarried man, making any denial contradictory. These truths often overlap with logical truths, particularly tautologies, as both derive necessity from conceptual relations rather than contingent facts about the world. Immanuel Kant introduced the analytic-synthetic distinction in his , classifying analytic judgments as those where the predicate concept is contained within the subject concept, explicating what is already thought rather than adding new information. In contrast, synthetic judgments introduce predicates not inherently contained in the subject, expanding knowledge. Kant viewed logical truths, such as principles of contradiction and identity, as a subset of analytic truths that are known a priori, independent of experience, due to their reliance on the principle of non-contradiction for validity. This framework positioned logical truths as foundational a priori analytic propositions, essential for the structure of thought without empirical content. W.V.O. Quine challenged this distinction in his 1951 essay "," arguing that no sharp boundary exists between analytic and synthetic truths, including logical ones. He contended that defining analyticity requires notions like synonymy or semantical rules, leading to circularity, and that logical truths—such as "No unmarried man is married"—are not immune, as they depend on a web of empirical confirmations within scientific theories rather than pure meaning. Quine proposed that what appear as logical truths are highly confirmed sentences, revisable under extreme empirical pressure, blurring the analytic-synthetic divide and rejecting Kant's rigid categorization. In contemporary philosophy, the debate persists, with many reviving a nuanced analytic-synthetic distinction post-Quine. Logical truths like formal tautologies (e.g., "Either P or not P") are widely regarded as analytic, holding by virtue of logical constants' meanings, while broader logical claims in natural language may incorporate empirical elements, resisting strict analytic classification. This view accommodates overlap but recognizes that not all logical truths fit neatly as analytic in everyday discourse, emphasizing context and linguistic conventions.

Logical Positivism

Logical positivism emerged in the 1920s and 1930s through the , a group of philosophers and scientists including , , and , who sought to unify philosophy with empirical science by emphasizing logical analysis and verification. The movement, also known as logical empiricism, was influenced by developments in modern logic from thinkers like and , aiming to eliminate metaphysics by restricting meaningful statements to those verifiable through empirical observation or logical necessity. Key figures such as Carnap, in works like The Logical Syntax of Language (1934), and , who popularized the ideas in the through Language, Truth and Logic (1936), articulated a philosophy where scientific progress depended on precise linguistic frameworks. Central to logical positivism was the verification principle, which posited that a statement is cognitively meaningful only if it can be empirically verified or is analytically true by . In this view, logical truths were equated with analytic propositions or tautologies, true solely by virtue of their linguistic meaning and , without asserting any factual content about the world. For instance, Ayer argued that "the truths of logic and are analytic propositions or tautologies," as they derive their certainty from the definitions of symbols rather than , contrasting sharply with synthetic statements that convey empirical information and require verification through experience. Carnap similarly maintained that logical truths lack descriptive power, serving instead as conventions within a chosen linguistic framework, thus rendering them non-informative about empirical reality. This perspective aligned logical truths closely with analytic truths, viewing both as devoid of empirical import and useful primarily for clarifying the structure of scientific . Critics within and beyond regarded these logical truths as "empty," mere linguistic conventions that do not uncover new facts but merely rephrase existing definitions, thereby limiting to without advancing substantive . Ayer himself acknowledged that analytic propositions "do not increase our " since they hold independently of , reducing their role to tautological elaboration rather than discovery. This emphasis on logical truths as non-empirical helped demarcate from but was seen as overly restrictive, confining meaningful discourse to verifiable claims. The influence of waned after , particularly following W. V. O. Quine's 1951 essay "," which challenged the analytic-synthetic distinction underpinning the treatment of logical truths, arguing that no clear boundary exists between them and that analyticity relies on circular definitions. , initially associated with the , further critiqued in (1934), proposing as a better demarcation criterion and rejecting the idea that logical truths could fully ground empirical science without addressing its tentative nature. Despite its decline due to these and other challenges, logical positivism's distinction between logical truths and empirical science endures in contemporary philosophy of science, shaping debates on the role of logic in empirical inquiry.

A Priori Knowledge

Logical truths are paradigmatically examples of a priori knowledge, which is understood as that is justified independently of empirical experience or sensory data. In contrast to knowledge, which relies on and from the world, a priori knowledge derives its justification from reason alone, often through or deduction. For instance, the logical truth that a conjunction is true only if both conjuncts are true is grasped through rational reflection, not through experimentation, much like mathematical axioms such as the commutativity of addition. This distinction originates in Immanuel Kant's framework, where he classified logical judgments as analytic a priori—known independently of experience through conceptual containment—and synthetic a priori judgments (such as those in ) as providing necessary structures for understanding experience. In the rationalist tradition, philosophers like and viewed logical truths as innate or self-evident principles accessible through pure reason. Descartes argued in his that clear and distinct ideas, including logical principles such as , are innate and known a priori because they are perceived by the "natural light" of the intellect, independent of sensory deception. Similarly, Leibniz, in his New Essays on Human Understanding, defended the innateness of logical truths against empiricist critiques, asserting that they are not derived from experience but are predisposed in the mind as necessary truths that hold universally and eternally. These rationalists emphasized that logical truths are not learned from the world but are discovered through introspective rational insight, forming the foundation of certain knowledge. Modern developments in this tradition, particularly Saul Kripke's work in , reinforce the a priori status of necessary truths, including logical ones, while distinguishing them from contingent empirical facts. Kripke maintains that logical truths are not only necessary—true in all possible worlds—but also knowable a priori through conceptual analysis, without requiring empirical verification. This aligns logical truths with a subclass of analytic truths, which are a priori by virtue of their meaning. Epistemological debates surrounding logical truths as a priori knowledge often center on whether they constitute justified true beliefs and how their justification withstands challenges like psychologism. Psychologism, the view that logical laws are reducible to psychological facts about thinking, was critiqued by Edmund Husserl in the Prolegomena to the Logical Investigations (1900), where he argued that treating logic as a branch of psychology confuses ideal, objective laws with subjective mental processes, thereby undermining the a priori necessity and universality of logical truths. Husserl's anti-psychologistic stance insists that logical truths are ideal species, knowable a priori as timeless and independent of individual cognition. In , the rationalist affirmation of a priori justification for logical truths contrasts with , as proposed by W.V.O. Quine in his essay "Epistemology Naturalized" (1969). Quine challenges the traditional a priori/a posteriori divide, suggesting that even logical truths lack absolute justification independent of empirical and are instead part of a holistic web of subject to revision based on sensory evidence. This naturalized approach views the justification of logical truths as continuous with scientific inquiry, rather than as purely rational and insulated from experience, prompting ongoing debates about the foundations of logical .

Extensions

Non-Classical Logics

Non-classical logics represent systems that depart from the principles of , particularly by challenging bivalence—the assumption that every is either true or false—and the , thereby altering what counts as a logical truth. These logics arise in response to philosophical, mathematical, and practical concerns where classical assumptions lead to counterintuitive or incomplete results, allowing for more nuanced treatments of , , and inconsistency. Intuitionistic logic, pioneered by in the early 1900s, exemplifies this shift by rejecting the (p∨¬pp \lor \neg p) and double negation elimination (¬¬p→p\neg \neg p \to p), especially for propositions involving infinite domains. Brouwer argued that such principles are unjustified without constructive verification, as the human mind cannot exhaustively check infinite collections. Instead, demands constructive proofs: a statement is true only if an exists to demonstrate it, such as explicitly constructing the object or decision procedure in finite steps. This emphasis on construction, formalized by Arend Heyting in 1930, ensures that logical truths are tied to verifiable mental activity rather than abstract existence. Many-valued logics further deviate from bivalence by incorporating more than two truth values, enabling the representation of partial truths or indeterminacy. In 1920, introduced a three-valued system with values true (1), false (0), and indeterminate (½), motivated by issues like future contingents in Aristotle's , where statements about undetermined events lack a definite . Connectives in this logic, such as implication defined as min⁡{1,1−u+v}\min\{1, 1 - u + v\} for inputs uu and vv, yield outcomes that classical bivalent tautologies do not preserve, as the third value disrupts exhaustive true/false dichotomies. Paraconsistent logics address the problem of inconsistency by permitting contradictions without triggering the principle of explosion (ex contradictione quodlibet), where a single falsehood implies all statements. Relevant logics, originating with Ivan Orlov's work in and developed further in the mid-20th century, achieve this by enforcing a relevance requirement: inferences must share content between premises and conclusions, blocking arbitrary deductions from contradictions. As a result, classical tautologies relying on explosive inference, such as those deriving everything from inconsistency, fail to hold as universal logical truths in these systems. These logics have profound implications for , where classical tautologies may no longer be provable. For instance, Heyting arithmetic—the intuitionistic formulation of first-order arithmetic—replaces Peano arithmetic and adheres to constructive principles, proving only those arithmetical statements with explicit constructions while remaining a consistent subsystem of its classical counterpart. This affects fields like , where non-constructive proofs are invalid, highlighting how logical truths vary across systems and influence foundational .

Formal Semantics

In , logical truth is defined as the property of a being satisfied in every possible model, providing a semantic foundation for validity independent of syntactic derivations. This approach was formalized by in his seminal 1936 work, where a ϕ\phi is deemed logically true if, for every structure MM, the satisfaction relation M⊨ϕM \models \phi holds, ensuring that ϕ\phi receives the value "true" under all admissible interpretations. Tarski's semantics distinguishes logical truth from material truth by emphasizing preservation across all models, rather than contingent factual scenarios. An interpretation in this framework consists of a non-empty and a valuation function that assigns meanings to logical constants, such as truth values to propositional variables or extensions to predicates and functions, thereby determining satisfaction for atomic formulas and extending recursively to complex ones. , closely related to logical truth, is preserved when a conclusion holds in every model that satisfies its , capturing the idea that no model exists where the premises are true but the conclusion false. This model-theoretic account addresses limitations in purely syntactic definitions by providing a robust criterion for validity that applies uniformly to and its extensions. Contemporary developments extend Tarski's model theory to richer logics, notably through Saul Kripke's 1963 semantics for , which interprets formulas over possible worlds structured by accessibility relations. In Kripke models, logical truths are those formulas that are true at every world in every such frame, often corresponding to necessary truths that hold across all accessible possibilities, thus generalizing the notion of universal satisfaction to handle modalities like necessity and possibility. However, formal semantics reveals gaps when connected to computability, as Kurt Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorems demonstrate the undecidability of truth in arithmetic systems, implying that no effective procedure can verify all instances of logical truth in sufficiently expressive theories. This undecidability underscores that while model-theoretic definitions provide an ideal of logical truth as universal satisfaction, practical determination remains limited in formal systems capable of arithmetic.

References

  1. https://users.ox.ac.uk/~logicman/gilbert/Definitions%20from%20the%20logic%20manual.pdf
  2. https://www.umsl.edu/~blackan/philosophy160/Lesson1.htm
  3. https://vault.hanover.edu/~bates/docs/research/ETLC-web.pdf
  4. https://philpapers.org/rec/ETCTMT
  5. https://www.ttahko.net/papers/logicaltruth.pdf
  6. https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/120/Chapter4.pdf
  7. https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/ajl/article/view/5914
  8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27902075
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/
  10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026546
  11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544685
  12. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/reason/critique-of-pure-reason.htm
  13. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/reason/critique-of-pure-reason.htm#IV
  14. https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
  15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-propositional/
  16. https://iep.utm.edu/propositional-logic-sentential-logic/
  17. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-truth/
  18. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/logic-ontology/
  19. https://daiwz.net/course/logic/books/AMIL2edn.pdf
  20. https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/History_of_Logic/Definition_of_Truth_and_Logical_Consequence/Tarski%20-%20The%20Concept%20of%20Logical%20Consequence.pdf
  21. https://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0114/lehre/pdf/perminvar.pdf
  22. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/26657/7/Why_Should_Identity_Be_Logical_preprint.pdf
  23. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
  24. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-deduction/
  25. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm
  26. https://gillianrussell.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/russell-quine-on-the-asd.pdf
  27. https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf
  28. https://philpapers.org/archive/OYAAIT.PDF
  29. https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/language-truth-and-logic.pdf
  30. https://www.sobider.net/FileUpload/ep842424/File/12.two_critics_of_logical_positivism1.pdf
  31. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40957/40957-h/40957-h.htm
  32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3327344
  33. https://philpapers.org/archive/husliv.pdf
  34. https://philpapers.org/archive/QUIEN.pdf
  35. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/
  36. https://iep.utm.edu/intuitionism-math/
  37. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/
  38. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
  39. https://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/Tarski.pdf
  40. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-37/issue-1/Tarski-on-Logical-Consequence/10.1305/ndjfl/1040067321.pdf
  41. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/modern-logic/volume-7/issue-2/Tarskis-1936-account-of-logical-consequence/rml/1204835843.pdf
  42. https://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/~morado/Cursos/17Modal/Kripke1963.pdf
  43. https://files.commons.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/1358/files/2019/03/Semantical-Considerations-on-Modal-Logic-PUBLIC.pdf
  44. https://monoskop.org/images/9/93/Kurt_G%25C3%25B6del_On_Formally_Undecidable_Propositions_of_Principia_Mathematica_and_Related_Systems_1992.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.