Gabriel Sandu

In this paper, we introduce a new approach to independent quantifiers, as originally introduced in Informational independence as a semantic phenomenon by Hintikka and Sandu [9] under the header of independence-friendly languages. Unlike other approaches, which rely heavily on compositional methods, we shall analyze independent quantifiers via equilibriums in strategic games. In this approach, coined equilibrium semantics, the value of an IF sentence on a particular structure is determined by the expected utility of the existential player in any of the game’s equilibriums. This approach was suggested in Henkin quantifiers and complete problems by Blass and Gurevich [2] but has not been taken up before. We prove that each rational number can be realized by an IF sentence. We also give a lower and upper bound on the expressive power of IF logic under equilibrium semantics

In his article The Foundations of Mathematics (1925) Ramsey was concerned with the nature of the statements of 'pure mathematics' and the way these statements differ from those in empirical sciences. He thought that the answer given to these questions by Hilbert and the formalist school according to which mathematical statements are meaningless formulas, is unsatisfactory for several reasons, which will not be discussed here. He also expressed serious doubts about the intuitionist program developed by Brouwer and Weyl. It is the logicist school of Frege, Russell and Whitehead, which attempted to reduce mathematics to few logical concepts, that came closest to Ramsey’s views, although he was not completely satisfied with it, either.

Tarski has exerted enormous influence not only on the development of mathematical logic, but on twentieth-century philosophy and philosophical analysis. This influence has been twofold, with the two components pulling in a sense in opposite directions. A comparison with the influence of the Vienna Circle provides an instructive vantage point in viewing Tarski’s influence. On the one hand, Tarski has provided powerful tools for logical analysis in philosophy. His first and most important contribution was to show that — and how — the crucial semantical concept of truth can be defined for various formal languages. They include the most central types of language used and studied by twentieth century logicians and philosophers. The subsequent work by Tarski and his school in creating contemporary model theory in its narrow sense as a branch of technical logic has likewise enriched tremendously the conceptual arsenal of philosophers. The extent and depth of Tarski’s influence is in fact easily underestimated. In comparison, Carnap’s well-known books in logical syntax and logical semantics did not in the same way contribute to the logical techniques that philosophers might find useful. A large part of Tarski’s influence lies in facilitating a switch of emphasis from purely syntactical to model-theoretical, semantical methods. It was Gödel’s and Tarski’s early work that forced logicians and philosophers for the first time to take seriously the distinction between semantical and syntactical concepts and methods. The general theoretical implications of the distinction were not realized at once. In the light of hindsight, it is for instance quite striking that Tarski still in his classical monograph repeatedly assimilates to each other the task of defining truth for some part of mathematics or logic and axiomatizing its truths in a sense that involves explicit syntactical rules of inference. It was nevertheless Tarski more than anyone else who began to develop and exploit systematically model-theoretical concepts in logical theory. In comparison, Gödel never developed systematically the model-theoretical aspects of logic. Others, for instance Quine, stubbornly remained within the syntactical tradition. Carnap, who did switch his attention from the syntactical to a semantical approach, was not powerful enough a logician to create a sufficiently rich store of model-theoretical techniques and ideas to be equally helpful in philosophical analysis. In contrast, several major developments in analytic philosophy have had their starting points in Tarski’s ideas. Well-known cases in point are Davidson’s truth-conditional semantics and the possible worlds semantics developed by Tarski’s favorite former student Richard Montague

We consider two versions of truth as grounded in verification procedures: Dummett's notion of proof as an effective way to establish the truth of a statement and Hintikka's GTS notion of truth as given by the existence of a winning strategy for the game associated with a statement. Hintikka has argued that the two notions should be effective and that one should thus restrict one's attention to recursive winning strategies. In the context of arithmetic, we show that the two notions do not coincide: on the one hand, proofs in PA do not yield recursive winning strategies for the associated game; on the other hand, there is no sound and effective proof procedure that captures recursive GTS truths. We then consider a generalized version of Game Theoretical Semantics by introducing games with backward moves. In this setting, a connection is made between proofs and recursive winning strategies. We then apply this distinction between two kinds of verificationist procedures to a recent debate about how we recognize the truth of Gödelian sentences

Logics in which a relation R is semantically incomplete in a particular universe E, i.e. the union of the extension of R with its anti-extension does not exhaust the whole universe E, have been studied quite extensively in the last years. (Cf. van Benthem (1985), Blamey (1986), and Langholm (1988), for partial predicate logic; Muskens (1996), for the applications of partial predicates to formal semantics, and Doherty (1996) for applications to modal logic.) This is not so with semantically incomplete generalized quantifiers which constitute the subject of the present paper. The only systematic study of these quantifiers from a purely logical point of view, is, to the best of my knowledge, that by van Eijck (1995). We shall take here a different approach than that of van Eijck and mention some of the abstract properties of the resulting logic. Finally we shall prove that the two approaches are interdefinable

In this paper I am going to inquire to what extent the main requirements of a minimalist theory of truth and falsity (as formulated, for example, by Horwich and Field) can be consistently implemented in a formal theory. I will discuss several of the existing logical theories of truth, including Tarski-type (un)definability results, Kripke’s partial interpretation of truth and falsity, Barwise and Moss’ theory based upon non-well-founded sets, McGee’s treatment of truth as a vague predicate, and Hintikka’s languages of imperfect information, to see which axioms of the minimalist theory they satisfy or fail to satisfy. Finally, I will discuss the relation between the minimalist program and compositionality.

It is far from clear what is meant by logic or what should be meant by it. It is nevertheless reasonable to identify logic as the study of inferences and inferential relations. The obvious practical use of logic is in any case to help us to reason well, to draw good inferences. And the typical form the theory of any part of logic seems to be a set of rules of inference. This answer already introduces some structure into a discussion of the nature of logic, for in an inference we can distinguish the input called a premise or premises from the output known as the conclusion. The transition from a premise or a number of premises to the conclusion is governed by a rule of inference. If the inference is in accordance with the appropriate rule, it is called valid. Rules of inference are often thought of as the alpha and omega of logic. Conceiving of logic as the study of inference is nevertheless only the first approximation to the title question, in that it prompts more questions than it answers. It is not clear what counts as an inference or what a theory of such inferences might look like. What are the rules of inference based on? Where do we find them? The ultimate end

The paper argues that there are two main kinds of joint action, direct joint bringing about (or performing) something (expressed in terms of a DO-operator) and jointly seeing to it that something is the case (expressed in terms of a Stit-operator). The former kind of joint action contains conjunctive, disjunctive and sequential action and its central subkinds. While joint seeing to it that something is the case is argued to be necessarily intentional, direct joint performance can also be nonintentional. Actions performed by social groups are analyzed in terms of the notions of joint action (basically DO and Stit).A precise semantical analysis of the aforementioned kinds of joint action is given in terms of time-trees. With each participant a tree is connected, and the trees are joined defining joint possible worlds in terms of state-expressing nodes from the trees. Sentences containing DO and Stit are semantically evaluated with respect to such joint possible worlds. Intentional joint actions are characterized in terms of the notion of we-intention (joint intention), characterized formally by means of a special operator.