Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2305.11887

How to Conquer the Liar and Enthrone the Logical Concept of Truth

Boris Culina
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article informally presents a solution to the paradoxes of truth and shows how the solution solves classical paradoxes (such as the original Liar) as well as the paradoxes that were invented as counterarguments for various proposed solutions (the revenge of the Liar). This solution complements the classical procedure of determining the truth values of sentences by its own failure and, when the procedure fails, through an appropriate semantic shift allows us to express the failure in a classical two-valued language. Formally speaking, the solution is a language with one meaning of symbols and two valuations of the truth values of sentences. The primary valuation is a classical valuation that is partial in the presence of the truth predicate. It enables us to determine the classical truth value of a sentence or leads to the failure of that determination. The language with the primary valuation is precisely the largest intrinsic fixed point of the strong Kleene three-valued semantics (LIFPSK3). The semantic shift that allows us to express the failure of the primary valuation is precisely the classical closure of LIFPSK3: it extends LIFPSK3 to a classical language in parts where LIFPSK3 is undetermined. Thus, this article provides an argumentation, which has not been present in contemporary debates so far, for the choice of LIFPSK3 and its classical closure as the right model for the truth predicate. In the end, an erroneous critique of Kripke-Feferman axiomatic theory of truth, which is present in contemporary literature, is pointed out.

Explore related subjects

math.HOmath.LO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Boris Culina. 2023-05-11. How to Conquer the Liar and Enthrone the Logical Concept of Truth. https://doi.org/10.52685/cjp.23.67.1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Stairs of Reconciliation: A Mathematical Tourist in Graz

Inside the Grazer Burg, two late-Gothic stone flights rise about distinct spindles, overlap, share several treads, and separate again. Their plan is governed not by a coaxial double helix but, to first approximation, by two intersecting circles. This elementary geometry yields a model of recurrent meeting and makes explicit the compatibility conditions that meeting requires. It also leads to a second object that geometers call a double spiral staircase - the helicoid - and to a useful distinction between resemblance and identity. The staircase becomes a meditation on how paths, models, and disciplines can meet without becoming the same.

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

On the Reconstruction of SAS from Other Triangle Congruence Criteria

Starting from a Hilbert plane and removing the Side-Angle-Side (SAS) congruence axiom, we investigate to what extent SAS can be recovered synthetically from the remaining classical triangle congruence criteria. We show that the Angle-Side-Angle criterion, together with a ray correspondence principle corresponding to Theorem 13 of Hilbert's \emph{Grundlagen der Geometrie}, suffices to reconstruct SAS. We further show that both the Side-Side-Side and the Side-Angle-Angle criteria also suffice, once combined with the ray correspondence principle and suitable auxiliary principles -- the existence of midpoints and a hypotenuse-angle criterion for right triangles in the first case, and the existence of angle bisectors, the congruence of supplements of congruent angles, and the Pons Asinorum in the second. Although the two routes rely on auxiliary principles of different character, we show that they converge on a single final argument once a common hypotenuse-angle criterion is established. A metamathematical analysis, based on an explicit model adapted from Hilbert's own independence construction, complements these reconstructions: it shows that the ray correspondence principle alone cannot reconstruct any of the classical criteria, and that the Pons Asinorum and the hypotenuse-angle criterion are each independent of the remaining auxiliary principles used in their respective reconstructions. The resulting picture is not a formal hierarchy of the congruence criteria, but it does show that the Angle-Side-Angle reconstruction rests on a provably more economical basis than those obtained from Side-Side-Side or Side-Angle-Angle.

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

Come for the vibe, stay for the math

This article describes our experiences in mathematical outreach over the past decade. We talk about specific activities, but also general principles that we've learned along the way.

math.HO↗