# Truth and Satisfaction by the Empty Sequence

• Jan Woleński
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 320)

## Abstract

Tarski (1933) selected the concept of satisfaction as the fundamental semantic notion serving as the basis for defining other categories of semantics, and in particular of truth. This choice has a deep intuitive motivation. According to the normal use of the word “satisfies”, we have
$$Object\;a\;satisfies\;the\;formula\;Fx\;if\;and\;only\;if\;the\;formula\;Fa\;is\;true.$$
(1)
For example, Warsaw satisfies the formula “x is the capital of Poland” if and only if the sentence “Warsaw is the capital of Poland” is true, or, more simply, if and only if Warsaw is the capital of Poland. However, (1) does not explain why satisfaction is conceptually prior to truth. Two reasons can be given to justify the priority of satisfaction in semantic constructions (see Tarski, 1944; Woleński, 1999). First, satisfaction is a more general concept. Intuitively, satisfaction is applied to open formulas, that is, formulas with free variables, but truth to sentences, that is, formulas in which all variables are bound by quantifiers or in which no variable occurs at all (this means that a formula consists of individual constant predicates and sentential connectives). Let (S) QνA be a general scheme for formulas, where “Q” stands for a quantifier (universal or existential) and the letter A denotes an arbitrary well-formed formula of first-order predicate logic. We do not know in advance whether A contains variables other than ν. If it does, (S) yields an open formula, but if it does not, we have a sentence. Thus, we can define formulas as properly constructed inscriptions that consist of quantifiers, variables, and other building blocks, and sentences as inscriptions without free variables.

## Keywords

Free Variable Infinite Sequence Atomic Formula Semantic Conception Empty Sequence
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## References

1. Barwise, J. (1975). Admissible Sets and Structures. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
2. Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J. (1999). Language, Proof and Logic. Seven Bridges Press, New York.Google Scholar
3. Enderton, H. (1972). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
4. Feferrnan, S. (1989). The Number Systems. Foundations of Algebra and Analysis. Chelsea Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
5. Gries, D. and Schneider, F. B. (1993). A Logical Approach to Discrete Mathematics. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
6. Grzegorczyk, A. (1974). An Outline of Mathematical Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
7. Popper, K. (1973). Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
8. Tarski, A. (1933). Pojecie prawdy w jezykach nauk dedukcyjnych. Towarzystwo Naukowe Warszawskie, Warszawa. English translation in A. Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Papers from 19231939, second edition, ed. by J. Corcoran. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis 1983, pp. 152–277 ( first edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1956 ).Google Scholar
9. Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research IV:241–275. Reprinted in A. Tarski, Papers, ed. by J. McKenzie and S. Givant. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel 1986, pp. 665–699.Google Scholar
10. Wolenski, J. (1999). Semantic conception of truth as a philosophical theory. In Peregrin, J., editor, The Nature of Truth (If Any), pp. 5166. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
11. Wolenski, J. (2000). Remarks on the concept of satisfaction. In Childers, T., editor, The Logica Yearbook 1999, pp. 80–86. Filosofia, Praha.Google Scholar