Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T21:08:42.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On supervaluations in free logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Peter W. Woodruff*
Affiliation:
University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California 92717

Extract

The concepts “classical valuation” and “supervaluation” were introduced by van Fraassen around 1966, to provide a semantic analysis of the then extant axiomatic systems of free logic. Consider an atomic sentence

and a “partial” model which fails to interpret c. Then (1) has no truth value in , nor does

While the valuelessness of (1) was found intuitively acceptable, that of (2) was not. Indeed, (2) and all other tautologies are theorems of free logic.

Van Fraassen found a way to accommodate both intuitions. He interprets the unproblematic atomic sentences as usual, while “interpreting” those like (1) by simply assigning them a truth-value in arbitrary fashion. Then a truth-value for every sentence can be defined in the usual way; the result van Fraassen calls a “classical valuation” of the language. The arbitrary element in any given classical valuation is then eliminated by passage to the “supervaluation” over , which agrees with the classical valuations where they agree among themselves, and otherwise is undefined. In the supervaluation over , (1) is valueless but (2) true (since true on all classical valuations), as was required.

There is a slight, but crucial oversimplification in the preceding account. Evaluation of the sentence

requires prior evaluation of the open formula

But here mere assignment of truth-value is not enough; a whole set must be arbitrarily assigned as extension. The quantification over classical valuations involved in passage to the supervaluation thus involves an implicit quantification over subsets of the domain of : supervaluations are second order.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bencivenga, E. [1983], Compactness of a supervaluational language, this Journal, vol. 48, pp. 384386.Google Scholar
Chang, C. C. and Keisler, H. J. [1973], Model theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. K. and Lambert, K. [1968], Universally free logic and standard quantification theory, this Journal, vol. 33, pp. 826.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. [1954], Quantification and the empty domain, this Journal, vol. 19, pp. 177179.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. [1966a], Singular terms, truth value gaps and free logic, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 63, pp. 481495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. [1966b], The completeness of free logic, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 12, pp. 219234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. [1968], A topological proof of the Löwenheim-Skolem, compactness and strong completeness theorems for free logic, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 14, pp. 245254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. [1969], Presuppositions, supervaluations and free logic, The logical way of doing things (Lambert, K., editor), Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 6791.Google Scholar