I Kripke's fixed point for truth predicate: justification?

Gold Member
Summary
What justifies saying that a fixed point for Kripke's process exists?
If I understand correctly (dubious), given a consistent theory C (collection of sentences), Kripke proposes to add a predicate T so that, if K = the collection of all sentences T("S") for every sentence S in C, ("." being some appropriate coding) then the closure of K∪C forms a new theory C*; one reiterates this until a fixed point is reached, Cn* =C(n+1)*. Then T is suitable as a truth predicate for this final theory.
Two questions:
(a) is this a proper statement of Kripke's truth predicate? If not, please correct.
(b) If so, what justifies the statement that such a fixed point exists?

Related Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics News on Phys.org

andrewkirk

Homework Helper
Gold Member
I don't think he is asserting that a fixed point exists. I think he is saying that IF a fixed point exists THEN T is suitable as a truth predicate. It may be that for many theories there is no fixed point, in which case it follows that there is no suitable truth predicate for that theory.

I assume the closure referred to is closure under deduction, so that any sentence that can be deduced from K union C is in the closure. Under that operation, the closure of a consistent theory should be consistent.

Although a fixed point may not be reached by any finite number of iterations, we can define a theory C* that is the union of all finite iterates. That theory will be a fixed point, but we lose the guarantee of consistency. Based on Godel's work on incompleteness, my guess is that, for any theory C that can express Peano arithmetic, no finite iterate will be a fixed point, and C* will be an inconsistent theory.

Last edited:

Gold Member
Thanks, andrewkirk, but my impression is the following: by using a three-value logic, his resulting fixed point exists even for a consistent theory containing PA, but there will be some sentences for which the truth predicate will give the third value: that is, the truth predicate will identify all the statements that are capable of being identified. So, if G is Gödel's sentence, and T is Kripke's predicate T with codomain {t,f,n}, then T(G) = n, not contradicting Tarski's theorem on the indefinability of truth. This doesn't seem to solve the Liar, but what I am looking for here is a rough explanation of the justification for his fixed point theorem.... say, how Zorn's Lemma or something might be applied.

andrewkirk

Homework Helper
Gold Member
OK, you didn't say you were using three-valued logic. In that setting there's no obstacle. You can find a formal presentation of the necessary definitions and a proof of the existence of a fixed point here. Theorem 4.5 is the Fixed Point Theorem.

Gold Member
Thanks, andrewkirk. That answers the question.

"Kripke's fixed point for truth predicate: justification?"

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving