Talk:Truth-value semantics

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Theorem of Beth[edit]

I'm interested to read about the theorem of Beth alluded to in the article. It certainly isn't true that in ordinary first-order logic, anonymous elements of the domain can be ignored; for example the real numbers satisfy $\exists x(x^{2}=2)$ in the language of rings, but there is no constant symbol for either root. So I am curious what context Beth was working in that made it possible to avoid this issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically there is a restriction on the size of the set of individual constants for the theorem to hold, viz. by Lowenheim-Skolem theorem, at least aleph-null. As per your particular example, the article is misleading, since the theorem pertains, not to satisfiability I think, but validity. Nortexoid (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is misleading. I'd like to fix it, but I don't know what it's trying to say. I'm just going to remove that sentence for now, we can always add it later if we figure out how to correct it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong" Completeness Theorem[edit]

In the fourth paragraph: "Truth-value semantics is not without its problems. First, the strong completeness theorem and compactness fail" -- can someone give us a pointer as to what the strong completeness theorem is? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in Gödel's_completeness_theorem (that I could find). Thanks BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference needed[edit]

The article mentions Dunn and Belnap 1968, which is what? 86.185.216.86 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]