We show how in the hierarchies ${F_\alpha }$ of Fieldian truth sets, and Herzberger’s ${H_\alpha }$ revision sequence starting from any hypothesis for ${F_0}$ (or ${H_0}$) that essentially each ${H_\alpha }$ (or ${F_\alpha }$) carries within it a history of the whole prior revision process.

As applications (1) we provide a precise representation for, and a calculation of the length of, possible path independent determinateness hierarchies of Field’s (2003) construction with a binary conditional operator. (2) We demonstrate the existence of generalized liar sentences, that can be considered as diagonalizing past the determinateness hierarchies definable in Field’s recent models. The ‘defectiveness’ of such diagonal sentences necessarily cannot be classified by any of the determinateness predicates of the model. They are ‘ineffable liars’. We may consider them a response to the claim of Field (2003) that ‘the conditional can be used to show that the theory is not subject to “revenge problems”.’

In proof-theoretic semantics of intuitionistic logic it is well known that elimination rules can be generated from introduction rules in a uniform way. If introduction rules discharge assumptions, the corresponding elimination rule is a rule of higher level, which allows one to discharge rules occurring as assumptions. In some cases, these uniformly generated elimination rules can be equivalently replaced with elimination rules that only discharge formulas or do not discharge any assumption at all—they can be flattened in a terminology proposed by Read. We show by an example from propositional logic that not all introduction rules have flat elimination rules. We translate the general form of flat elimination rules into a formula of second-order propositional logic and demonstrate that our example is not equivalent to any such formula. The proof uses elementary techniques from propositional logic and Kripke semantics.

We axiomatize Leitgeb’s (2005) theory of truth and show that this theory proves all arithmetical sentences of the system of ramified analysis up to ε0. We also give alternative axiomatizations of Kripke’s (1975) theory of truth (Strong Kleene and supervaluational version) and show that they are at least as strong as the Kripke-Feferman system KF and Cantini’s VF, respectively.

A crucial part of the contemporary interest in logicism in the philosophy of mathematics resides in its idea that arithmetical knowledge may be based on logical knowledge. Here, an implementation of this idea is considered that holds that knowledge of arithmetical principles may be based on two things: (i) knowledge of logical principles and (ii) knowledge that the arithmetical principles are representable in the logical principles. The notions of representation considered here are related to theory-based and structure-based notions of representation from contemporary mathematical logic. It is argued that the theory-based versions of such logicism are either too liberal (the plethora problem) or are committed to intuitively incorrect closure conditions (the consistency problem). Structure-based versions must on the other hand respond to a charge of begging the question (the circularity problem) or explain how one may have a knowledge of structure in advance of a knowledge of axioms (the signature problem). This discussion is significant because it gives us a better idea of what a notion of representation must look like if it is to aid in realizing some of the traditional epistemic aims of logicism in the philosophy of mathematics.

I develop a formal logic in which quantified arguments occur in argument positions of predicates. This logic also incorporates negative predication, anaphora and converse relation terms, namely, additional syntactic features of natural language. In these and additional respects, it represents the logic of natural language more adequately than does any version of Frege’s Predicate Calculus. I first introduce the system’s main ideas and familiarize it by means of translations of natural language sentences. I then develop a formal system built on these principles, the Quantified Argument Calculus or Quarc. I provide a truth-value assignment semantics and a proof system for the Quarc. I next demonstrate the system’s power by a variety of proofs; I prove its soundness; and I comment on its completeness. I then extend the system to modal logic, again providing a proof system and a truth-value assignment semantics. I proceed to show how the Quarc versions of the Barcan formulas, of their converses and of necessary existence come out straightforwardly invalid, which I argue is an advantage of the modal Quarc over modal Predicate Logic as a system intended to capture the logic of natural language.

Restricted quantification poses a serious and under-appreciated challenge for nonclassical approaches to both vagueness and the semantic paradoxes. It is tempting to explain “All A are B” as “For all x, if x is A then x is B”; but in the nonclassical logics typically used in dealing with vagueness and the semantic paradoxes (even those where ‘if … then’ is a special conditional not definable in terms of negation and disjunction or conjunction), this definition of restricted quantification fails to deliver important principles of restricted quantification that we’d expect. If we’re going to use a nonclassical logic, we need one that handles restricted quantification better.

The challenge is especially acute for naive theories of truth—roughly, theories that take True(〈A〉) to be intersubstitutable with A, even when A is a “paradoxical” sentence such as a Liar-sentence. A naive truth theory inevitably involves a somewhat nonclassical logic; the challenge is to get a logic that’s compatible with naive truth and also validates intuitively obvious claims involving restricted quantification (for instance, “If S is a truth stated by Jones, and every truth stated by Jones was also stated by Smith, then S is a truth stated by Smith”). No extant naive truth theory even comes close to meeting this challenge, including the theory I put forth in Saving Truth from Paradox. After reviewing the motivations for naive truth, and elaborating on some of the problems posed by restricted quantification, I will show how to do better. (I take the resulting logic to be appropriate for vagueness too, though that goes beyond the present paper.)

In showing that the resulting logic is adequate to naive truth, I will employ a somewhat novel fixed point construction that may prove useful in other contexts.