Luca Castaldo

Halbach and Fujimoto have formulated an axiomatic theory of truth and determinateness, CD. They asked whether the theory can be augmented with a principle saying that all determinateness ascriptions are themselves determinate. We answer their question in the negative. In order to put the problem in a more abstract framework, we introduce the notion of `admissibility', and we obtain a general impossibility result for the class of admissible sentences. In particular, we show that under mild assumptions on the notion of admissibility, the principle that admissibility ascriptions are themselves admissible entails triviality over Strong Kleene logic, even without assuming the transparency of truth.

The paper proposes and studies new classical, type-free theories of truth and determinateness with unprecedented features. The theories are fully compositional, strongly classical (namely, their internal and external logics are both classical), and feature a defined determinateness predicate satisfying desirable and widely agreed principles. The theories capture a conception of truth and determinateness according to which the generalizing power associated with the classicality and full compositionality of truth is combined with the identification of a natural class of sentences—the determinate ones—for which clear-cut semantic rules are available. Our theories can also be seen as the classical closures of Kripke–Feferman truth: their $\omega $ -models, which we precisely pin down, result from including in the extension of the truth predicate the sentences that are satisfied by a Kripkean closed-off fixed-point model. The theories compare to recent theories proposed by Fujimoto and Halbach, featuring a primitive determinateness predicate. In the paper we show that our theories entail all principles of Fujimoto and Halbach’s theories, and are proof-theoretically equivalent to Fujimoto and Halbach’s $\mathsf {CD}^{+}$. We also show establish some negative results on Fujimoto and Halbach’s theories: such results show that, unlike what happens in our theories, the primitive determinateness predicate prevents one from establishing clear and unrestricted semantic rules for the language with type-free truth.

When accepting an axiomatic theory S, we are implicitly committed to various statements that are independent of its axioms. Examples of such implicit commitments include consistency statements and reflection principles for S. While foundational acceptance has received considerable attention in this context, the study of implicit commitments triggered by weaker notions remains underdeveloped. This article extends the analysis investigating implicit commitments inherent in instrumental acceptance, comparing them with the implicit commitments involved in foundational acceptance. Concentrating on Reinhardt’s instrumentalism vis-à-vis Kripke–Feferman theory of truth as a case study, we present a number of formal theories of acceptance motivated by Reinhardt’s program and we analyze their properties. We argue that, under reasonable assumptions, instrumental acceptance does entail non-trivial implicit commitments, yet weaker than those associated with foundational acceptance.

The Liar paradox arguably shows that a coherent and self-applicable notion of truth is governed by nonclassical logic. It then seems natural to conclude that classical logic is inadequate for defining a truth theory. In this article, we argue that this is not the case. In the spirit of Reinhardt (Math Logic Formal Syst 94:227, 1985; J Philos Logic 15:219–251, 1986), and in analogy with Hilbert’s program for the foundation of classical mathematics, we will articulate an instrumentalist justification for the use classical logic: it will be argued that classical reasoning is a _useful but dispensable instrument_, which can yield philosophically adequate truth theories.

This article investigates models of axiomatizations related to the semantic conception of truth presented by Kripke (J Philos 72(19):690–716, 1975), the so-called _fixed-point semantics_. Among the various proof systems devised as a proof-theoretic characterization of the fixed-point semantics, in recent years two alternatives have received particular attention: _classical systems_ (i.e., systems based on classical logic) and _nonclassical systems_ (i.e., systems based on some nonclassical logic). The present article, building on Halbach and Nicolai (J Philos Log 47(2):227–257, 2018), shows that there is a sense in which classical and nonclassical theories (in suitable variants) have the same models.

This paper introduces a new kind of fixed-point semantics, filling a gap within approaches to Liar-like paradoxes involving fixed-point models à la Kripke (1975). The four-valued models presented below, (i) unlike the three-valued, consistent fixed-point models defined in Kripke (1975), are able to differentiate between paradoxical and pathological-but-unparadoxical sentences, and (ii) unlike the four-valued, paraconsistent fixed-point models first studied in Visser (1984) and Woodruff (1984), preserve consistency and groundedness of truth.

In “Some Remarks on Extending and Interpreting Theories with a Partial Truth Predicate”, Reinhardt [21] famously proposed an instrumentalist interpretation of the truth theory Kripke–Feferman ( $\mathrm {KF}$ ) in analogy to Hilbert’s program. Reinhardt suggested to view $\mathrm {KF}$ as a tool for generating “the significant part of $\mathrm {KF}$ ”, that is, as a tool for deriving sentences of the form $\mathrm{Tr}\ulcorner {\varphi }\urcorner $. The constitutive question of Reinhardt’s program was whether it was possible “to justify the use of nonsignificant sentences entirely within the framework of significant sentences”. This question was answered negatively by Halbach & Horsten [10] but we argue that under a more careful interpretation the question may receive a positive answer. To this end, we propose to shift attention from $\mathrm {KF}$ -provably true sentences to $\mathrm {KF}$ -provably true inferences, that is, we shall identify the significant part of $\mathrm {KF}$ with the set of pairs $\langle {\Gamma, \Delta }\rangle $, such that $\mathrm {KF}$ proves that if all members of $\Gamma $ are true, at least one member of $\Delta $ is true. In way of addressing Reinhardt’s question we show that the provably true inferences of suitable $\mathrm {KF}$ -like theories coincide with the provable sequents of matching versions of the theory Partial Kripke–Feferman ( $\mathrm {PKF}$ ).

This article compares classical (or -like) and nonclassical (or -like) axiomatisations of the fixed-point semantics developed by Kripke (J Philos 72(19): 690–716, 1975). Following the line of investigation of Halbach and Nicolai (J Philos Logic 47(2): 227–257, 2018), we do not compare and qua theories of truth simpliciter, but rather qua axiomatisations of the Kripkean conception of truth. We strengthen the central results of Halbach and Nicolai (2018) and Nicolai (Stud Log 106(1): 101–130, 2018), showing that, on the one hand, there is a stronger sense in which some variants of and some variants of can be taken to be, truth-theoretically, equivalent. On the other hand, we show that this truth-theoretical equivalence is not preserved by some other variants of and, arguing that the variants are more adequate axiomatisations of the fixed-point semantics than the corresponding variants.