The main aim of our paper was to present three formal tools for comparing various axiomatic theories of truth. In Section 2 we aimed at showing that there are indeed many different approaches to defining a set of axioms for the notion of truth. In Section 3 we introduced three different \measures of strength" of axiomatic theories of truth, i.e. three reflexive and transitive relations on the set of axiomatic theories of truth. We have explained the intuition behind each of (...) them. The three relations were called : Fujimoto definability, model-theoretical strength, proof-theoretical strength. Then in the last section we described how they order the truth theories introduced in Section 2. We observed that theories made equivalent by the coarser relation can be strictly ordered by the next one. (shrink)

We introduce a principle of local collection for compositional truth predicates and show that it is arithmetically conservative over the classically compositional theory of truth. This axiom states that upon restriction to formulae of any syntactic complexity, the resulting predicate satisfies full collection. In particular, arguments using collection for the truth predicate applied to sentences occurring in any given (code of a) proof do not suffice to show that the conclusion of that proof is true, in stark contrast to the (...) case of the induction scheme. We analyse various further results concerning end-extensions of models of compositional truth and the collection scheme for the compositional truth predicate. (shrink)

We employ the lens provided by formal truth theory to study axiomatizations of Peano Arithmetic ${\textsf {(PA)}}$. More specifically, let Elementary Arithmetic ${\textsf {(EA)}}$ be the fragment $\mathsf {I}\Delta _0 + \mathsf {Exp}$ of ${\textsf {PA}}$, and let ${\textsf {CT}}^-[{\textsf {EA}}]$ be the extension of ${\textsf {EA}}$ by the commonly studied axioms of compositional truth ${\textsf {CT}}^-$. We investigate both local and global properties of the family of first order theories of the form ${\textsf {CT}}^-[{\textsf {EA}}] +\alpha $, where $\alpha (...) $ is a particular way of expressing “ ${\textsf {PA}}$ is true” (using the truth predicate). Our focus is dominantly on two types of axiomatizations, namely: (1) schematic axiomatizations that are deductively equivalent to ${\textsf {PA}}$ and (2) axiomatizations that are proof-theoretically equivalent to the canonical axiomatization of ${\textsf {PA}}$. (shrink)

This paper explores the relationship borne by the traditional paradoxes of set theory and semantics to formal incompleteness phenomena. A central tool is the application of the Arithmetized Completeness Theorem to systems of second-order arithmetic and set theory in which various “paradoxical notions” for first-order languages can be formalized. I will first discuss the setting in which this result was originally presented by Hilbert & Bernays (1939) and also how it was later adapted by Kreisel (1950) and Wang (1955) in (...) order to obtain formal undecidability results. A generalization of this method will then be presented whereby Russell’s paradox, a variant of Mirimanoff’s paradox, the Liar, and the Grelling–Nelson paradox may be uniformly transformed into incompleteness theorems. Some additional observations are then framed relating these results to the unification of the set theoretic and semantic paradoxes, the intensionality of arithmetization (in the sense of Feferman, 1960), and axiomatic theories of truth. (shrink)

Ali Enayat had asked whether two halves of Disjunctive Correctness ([Formula: see text]) for the compositional truth predicate are conservative over Peano Arithmetic (PA). In this paper, we show that the principle “every true disjunction has a true disjunct” is equivalent to bounded induction for the compositional truth predicate and thus it is not conservative. On the other hand, the converse implication “any disjunction with a true disjunct is true” can be conservatively added to [Formula: see text]. The methods introduced (...) here allow us to give a direct nonconservativeness proof for [Formula: see text]. (shrink)