[permalink] [id link]
Tarski, in " On the Concept of Truth in Formal Languages ", attempted to formulate a new theory of truth in order to resolve the liar paradox.
from
Wikipedia
Some Related Sentences
Tarski and Concept
* Alfred Tarski, 1936, " The Concept of Truth in Formal Systems " in Corcoran, J., ed., 1983.
Translated as " The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages ", in Tarski ( 1983 ), pp. 152 – 278.
Tarski and Truth
In his 1975 article " Outline of a Theory of Truth ", Kripke showed that a language can consistently contain its own truth predicate, which was deemed impossible by Alfred Tarski, a pioneer in the area of formal theories of truth.
* Tarski, Alfred ( 1944 ), " The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics ", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4 ( 3 ), 341 – 376.
Tarski and ",
Alfred Tarski diagnosed the paradox as arising only in languages that are " semantically closed ", by which he meant a language in which it is possible for one sentence to predicate truth ( or falsehood ) of another sentence in the same language ( or even of itself ).
" Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic II: Non-Normal Modal Propositional Calculi ", In The Theory of Models, edited by J. W. Addison, L. Henkin and A. Tarski.
* 1930 " Investigations into the Sentential Calculus " über den Aussagenkalkül ", with Alfred Tarski
* Jónsson, B. and Tarski, A., 1951 – 52, " Boolean Algebra with Operators I and II ", American Journal of Mathematics 73: 891-939 and 74: 129 – 62.
Tarski and new
Tarski's lecture at the 1950 International Congress of Mathematicians in Cambridge ushered in a new period in which model-theoretic aspects were developed, mainly by Tarski himself, as well as C. C.
Tarski and theory
* Tarski – Grothendieck set theory
* Tarski's axioms: Alfred Tarski ( 1902 – 1983 ) and his students defined elementary Euclidean geometry as the geometry that can be expressed in first-order logic and does not depend on set theory for its logical basis, in contrast to Hilbert's axioms, which involve point sets.
Classical measure theory makes deep usage of the axiom of choice, which is fundamental to, first, distinction between measurable and non-measurable sets, the existence of the latter being behind such famous results as the Banach – Tarski paradox, and secondly the hierarchies of notions of measure captured by notions such as Borel algebras, which are an important source of intuitions in set theory.
Among the philosophers who grappled with this problem is Alfred Tarski, whose semantic theory is summarized further below in this article.
Logician and philosopher Alfred Tarski developed the theory for formal languages ( such as formal logic ).
As a result Tarski held that the semantic theory could not be applied to any natural language, such as English, because they contain their own truth predicates.
The Banach – Tarski paradox is a theorem in measure theory that is paradoxical in the sense that it contradicts common intuitions about volume in three-dimensional space.
Developments in metamathematics and category theory in the 1940s and 1950s furthered the field, particularly the work of Abraham Robinson, Alfred Tarski, Andrzej Mostowski, and their students ( Brainerd 1967 ).
Kuratowski ’ s research in the field of measure theory, including research with Banach, Tarski, was continued by many students.
Moreover, with Alfred Tarski and Wacław Sierpiński he provided most of the theory concerning Polish spaces ( that are indeed named after these mathematicians and their legacy ).
Sets his theory of truth ( against Alfred Tarski ), where an object language can contain its own truth predicate.
In the mathematical areas of order and lattice theory, the Knaster – Tarski theorem, named after Bronisław Knaster and Alfred Tarski, states the following:
The MML is built on the axioms of the Tarski – Grothendieck set theory.
* Tarski – Grothendieck set theory, an axiomatic set theory
Some years before Strawson developed his account of the sentences which include the truth-predicate as performative utterances, Alfred Tarski had developed his so-called semantic theory of truth.
Tarski thought of his theory as a species of correspondence theory of truth, not a deflationary theory.
It is important to note that as Tarski originally formulated it, this theory applies only to formal languages.
Tarski developed the theory to give an inductive definition of truth as follows.
For example, Tarski found an algorithm that can decide the truth of any statement in analytic geometry ( more precisely, he proved that the theory of real closed fields is decidable ).
Tarski and truth
Later, Jan Łukasiewicz and Alfred Tarski together formulated a logic on n truth values where n ≥ 2.
1936: Alfred Tarski proved his truth undefinability theorem.
Tarski formulated his definition of truth indirectly through a recursive definition of the satisfaction of sentential functions and then by defining truth in terms of satisfaction.
The semantic conception of truth, which is related in different ways to both the correspondence and deflationary conceptions, is due to work published by Polish logician Alfred Tarski in the 1930s.
Tarski himself defined truth for atomic sentences in a variant way that does not use any technical terms from semantics, such as the " expressed by " above.
The T-schema, which embodies the theory of truth proposed by Alfred Tarski, defines the truth of arbitrary sentences from the truth of atomic sentences.
It was in this journal, in 1933, that Alfred Tarski — whose illustrious career would a few years later take him to the University of California, Berkeley — published his celebrated theorem on the undefinability of the notion of truth.
This form has all universal quantifiers preceding any existential quantifiers, so that all sentences can be recast in the form This fact allowed Tarski to prove that Euclidean geometry is decidable: there exists an algorithm which can determine the truth or falsity of any sentence.
Tarski and order
In mathematics, a Tarski monster group, named for Alfred Tarski, is an infinite group G, such that every proper subgroup H of G, other than the identity subgroup, is a cyclic group of order a fixed prime number p. A Tarski monster group is necessarily simple.
Tarski ( 1951 ) proved that the theory of real closed fields in the first order language of partially ordered rings ( consisting of the binary predicate symbols "=" and "≤", the operations of addition, subtraction and multiplication and the constant symbols 0, 1 ) admits elimination of quantifiers.
Tarski and paradox
One example is the Banach – Tarski paradox which says that it is possible to decompose (" carve up ") the 3-dimensional solid unit ball into finitely many pieces and, using only rotations and translations, reassemble the pieces into two solid balls each with the same volume as the original.
For example, the Banach – Tarski paradox is neither provable nor disprovable from ZF alone: it is impossible to construct the required decomposition of the unit ball in ZF, but also impossible to prove there is no such decomposition.
Statements such as the Banach – Tarski paradox can be rephrased as conditional statements, for example, " If AC holds, the decomposition in the Banach – Tarski paradox exists.
** The Banach – Tarski paradox.
# redirect Banach – Tarski paradox
* Banach – Tarski paradox
Some of the notable mathematical concepts named after Banach include Banach spaces, Banach algebras, the Banach – Tarski paradox, the Hahn – Banach theorem, the Banach – Steinhaus theorem, the Banach-Mazur game, the Banach – Alaoglu theorem and the Banach fixed-point theorem.
* Banach – Tarski paradox
The well-ordering theorem has consequences that may seem paradoxical, such as the Banach – Tarski paradox.
* Banach – Tarski paradox
These results should be compared with the much more paradoxical decompositions in three dimensions provided by the Banach – Tarski paradox ; those decompositions can even change the volume of a set.
* Banach – Tarski paradox
Tarski thus formulated a two-tiered scheme that avoids semantic paradoxes such as Russell's paradox.
For various constructions of non-measurable sets, see Vitali set, Hausdorff paradox, and Banach – Tarski paradox.
The Hausdorff paradox and Banach – Tarski paradox show that you can take a three dimensional ball of radius 1, dissect it into 5 parts, move and rotate the parts and get two balls of radius 1.
In 1989, A. K. Dewdney published a letter from his friend Arlo Lipof in the Computer Recreations column of the Scientific American where he describes an underground operation " in a South American country " of doubling gold balls using the Banach – Tarski paradox.
0.197 seconds.