Skip to main content

Further Developments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 909 Accesses

Part of the book series: Trends in Logic ((TREN,volume 36))

Abstract

In this concluding chapter, we will glance at some possible developments of our theory of generalized truth values. In particular, we will raise the issues of adding quantifiers and modal operators to the propositional languages considered in the previous chapters. Moreover, we will briefly touch on the idea of adverbially qualified truth values. Finally, we will look at further philosophical interpretations of Dunn and Belnap’s four-valued logic and consider the possibilities of an extension of these interpretations beyond the four-valued case.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The familiar ◊-version of the necessitation rules is \(\vdash \neg A / \vdash \neg \,\lozenge A,\) and the familiar ◊-version of the \(K\) axiom is the formula \((\neg \,\lozenge A \wedge \,\lozenge B) \rightarrow \,\lozenge (\neg A \wedge B),\) cf. [51, Chap. 4]. Since we have two versions of negation, conjunction, and implication in \({{\fancyscript{L}}}^{*}_{tf},\) there are \(several\) options for formulating “◊-versions” of the necessitation rule and the \(K\)-axiom.

  2. 2.

    Lewis uses the term “discursive” from the first English translation of Jaśkowsi’s paper, but “discussive” seems to be the more appropriate translation of the Polish word “dyskusyjny”, see the editorial note in [135, p. 55].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaroslav Shramko .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shramko, Y., Wansing, H. (2011). Further Developments. In: Truth and Falsehood. Trends in Logic, vol 36. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0907-2_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics