Talk:T-schema

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance

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

The term 'T-schema' does not refer to the inductive definition of truth due to Tarski[edit]

This article is based on a (rather common) mistake: confusing the T-schema and the definition of truth given by Tarski. The T-schema is an adequacy condition which the definition of truth must satisfy, but it does not itself constitute a definition of truth. I will re-write this article to correct the mistake when I have the time if no one else will. Aatu 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, but there's not much harm in the confusion, since given appropriate assumptions in set theory, the T-schema uniquely determines an inductive truth valuation. I'm all in favour of clairty, but I'm not into overlabouring distinctions without a difference. --- Charles Stewart 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convention T vs. T-schema[edit]

An anonymous editor switched this article to the former: my instinct is that the latter is much more common. The Google test with the additional term "Tarski" (to avoid convention t-shirts and the like) suggests my intuition is well-founded. I'm changing the article back. --- Charles Stewart 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the T-Schema and Convention-T is also not the same, neither is T-Schema and the form (T). Convention-T is the demand that every truth-definition imply all sentences of the form (T) "'S' is true if and only if S" in order to be a truth-definition, whereas the T-Schema is to be considered as the axiom schema corresponding to form (T) which is used when axiomatizing theories of truth. Eventhough T-Schema and the form (T) looks similar, they do not play the same role. For the mistake regarding Convention-T/form (T), Künne, W. Conceptions of truth 2003 pp 182-183. Sadly enough, Künne is using Schema (T) as a name for form (T). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.211.102 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]: The distinction between the form T and the schema T doesn't seem to matter much. See Heath (2001) p. 186 which even says that Dummett's more formally different formulation is equivalent "ignoring certain technicalities". This article needs a lot more substantive expansion before we worry about those. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for T-theories[edit]

I was not able to find a formalisation of the T-schema in either of the two references for this article (I also did a very quick google search and didn't come up with anything). Could somebody please add references for the formalisation of the T-schema in predicate logic or in modal logic, preferably both (I am by no means an expert in logic so I don't trust myself to do it myself). Joel Brennan (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]