Upcoming SlideShare
×

# RossellaMarrano_ PhDsinLogicVI

722 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

• Be the first to like this

Views
Total views
722
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
362
Actions
Shares
0
1
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

### RossellaMarrano_ PhDsinLogicVI

1. 1. A Note on Suszko’s Reduction and Suszko’s Thesis Rossella Marrano Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa Joint work with Hykel Hosni April 25, 2014
2. 2. The problem Roman Suszko (1919-1979) Obviously, any multiplication of logical values is a mad idea. (1977) Suszko’s Reduction (SR) Every Tarskian logic has an adequate bivalent semantics. Suszko’s Thesis (ST) True and false are the only logical values. Łukasiewicz is the chief perpetrator of a magniﬁcent conceptual deceit lasting out in mathematical logic to the present day. Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 2 / 12
3. 3. Abstract logic and algebraic semantics L, where ⊆ P(L) × L is Tarskian if satisﬁes the following: (REF) θ ∈ Γ ⇒ Γ θ, (MON) Γ ⊆ ∆, Γ θ ⇒ ∆ θ, (TR) Γ θ, Γ, θ φ ⇒ Γ φ. FM = For, C FM, A = A, { fc | c ∈ C } h: For → A with h ∈ Hom(FM, A) Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 3 / 12
4. 4. Logical Matrices: the set of designated values M = A, D with D ⊂ A. Validity γ ∈ For is valid under h ∈ Hom(FM, A) iﬀ h(γ) ∈ D Having a model (or satisﬁability) Γ ⊆ For has a model iﬀ there exists h ∈ Hom(FM, A) such that ∀γ ∈ Γ h(γ) ∈ D Tautology γ ∈ For is a tautology iﬀ for all h ∈ Hom(FM, A) h(γ) ∈ D Logical Consequence Γ |=M φ ⇐⇒ ∀h ∈ Hom(FM, A) if ∀γ ∈ Γ h(γ) ∈ D then h(φ) ∈ D. Lemma (Wójcicki’s Theorem) Every structural Tarskian logic has an adequate n-valued matrix semantics, for n ≤ |For|. Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 4 / 12
5. 5. Example: Ł3 “To me, personally, the principle of bivalence does not appear to be self-evident. Therefore I am entitled not to recognize it, and to accept the view that besides truth and falsehood there exist other truth-values, including at least one more, the third truth-value.” (Łukasiewicz, 1922) FM = For, ¬, ∧, ∨, → A = {0, 1 2 , 1}, F¬, F∧, F∨, F→ h: For → {0, 1 2 , 1}, with h ∈ Hom(FM, A) D = {1} M = A, {1} Γ |=M φ ⇐⇒ ∀h ∈ Hom(FM, A) if v(Γ) = 1 then v(φ) = 1. a conclusion follows logically from some premises if and only if, whenever the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. (Tarski, 1936) Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 5 / 12
6. 6. Suszko’s reduction: the standard presentation Theorem (Suszko, 1977) Every Tarskian logic has an adequate bivalent semantics. L = FM, By Wójcicki’s Theorem, there exists M = A, D s.t. |A| is countable, |=M = for any h ∈ Hom(FM, A) and for any φ ∈ For deﬁne h2 : For → {0, 1}: h2(φ) = 1, if h(φ) ∈ D; 0, if h(φ) /∈ D. There exists M2 = A, D s.t. |A| = 2, |=2 = |=M Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 6 / 12
7. 7. Alternative proof (Tsuji, 1998) Theorem (Suszko, 1977) Every Tarskian logic has an adequate bivalent semantics. L = FM, CL = ¯Γ ⊆ For ¯Γ φ implies φ ∈ ¯Γ for all ¯Γ ⊆ For v¯Γ(φ) = 1, if φ ∈ ¯Γ; 0, if φ /∈ ¯Γ. |= deﬁned on v¯Γ : For → {0, 1} ¯Γ ∈ CL |= = Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 7 / 12
8. 8. Our proposal: a two-fold result SR1 Every Tarskian logic has an adequate bivalent semantics. SR2 Every n-valued matrix semantics can be reduced to a bivalent semantics. Is this a semantics? syntactical nature truth-functionality Is this a reduction? ontological reduction truth-functionality Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 8 / 12
9. 9. What is left? The logical content SR1 Tarskian axioms on logical consequence fully characterise a ‘1-preserving’ notion of consequence. SR2 the distinction between designed and undesigned values restores bivalence. Intrinsic bivalence of the Tarskian notion of logical consequence. A philosophical content? Against Suszko’s thesis SST True and false are the only logical values. WST Every Tarskian logic is logically two-valued. No direct philosophical implications on the nature of truth-values and on the status of many-valuedness. Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 9 / 12
10. 10. Philosophical ‘feedback’ Logical consequence meta-level bivalence diﬀerent notions of logical consequence Degrees of truth more than one notion of truth in the model ...or ‘degrees of falsity’? Methodological lesson mathematical theorem/philosohical issues formalisation in philosophy Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 10 / 12
11. 11. References J.Łukasiewicz. Selected works.L. Borkowski (ed.), North-Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam, 1970. J. M. Font. Taking Degrees of Truth Seriously. Studia Logica, 91(3):383–406, 2009. R. Suszko. The Fregean Axiom and Polish Mathematical Logic in the 1920s, Studia Logica, XXXVI (4), 1977. A. Tarski. On the concept of following logically. 1936 M. Tsuji. Many-Valued Logics and Suszko’s Thesis Revisited. Studia Logica, 60:299–309, 1998. H. Wansing and Y. Shramko. Suszko’s Thesis, Inferential Many-valuedness, and the Notion of a Logical System. Studia Logica, 88(3):405–429, 2008. R. Wójcicki. Some Remarks on the Consequence Operation in Sentential Logics. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 8:269–279, 1970. Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 11 / 12
12. 12. Truth-functionality [. . . ] logical valuations are morphism (of formulas to the zero-one model) in some exceptional cases only. (Suszko, 1977) Łukasiewicz three-valued logic h: For → {0, 1 2 , 1} D = {1} SR: ∀h ∀φ ∃h2 : For → {0, 1} h2(φ) = 1, if h(φ) = 1; 0, otherwise. h2 is not compositional if h(φ) = 1 2 then h2(φ) = h2(¬φ) = 0 if h(φ) = 1 then h2(φ) = 1 and h2(¬φ) = 0 Back Rossella Marrano (SNS) Suszko’s reduction and Suszko’s thesis 25/04/2014 12 / 12