The Architecture of Truth

Robert E. Kent
2024-04-24
Abstract:The theory of institutions is framed as an indexed/fibered duality, where the indexed aspect specifies the fibered aspect. Tarski represented truth in terms of a satisfaction relation. The theory of institutions encodes satisfaction as its core architecture in the indexed aspect. Logical environments enrich this truth architecture by axiomatizing the truth adjunction in the fibered aspect. The truth architecture is preserved by morphisms of logical environments. (Although not every institution is a logical environment, each institution has an associated logical environment defined via the intent of the structures of the institution, and each institution is represented by an indexed functor into the structure category of the classification logical environment $\mathtt{Cls}$.)
Logic in Computer Science
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The core problem that this paper attempts to solve is to explore and construct the Architecture of Truth in logical systems. Specifically, by introducing the concept of indexed/fibered duality, the author encodes Tarski's satisfaction relation as a core part of this architecture. The main contributions of the paper are as follows: 1. **Defining the Architecture of Truth**: By specifying the fibered aspect in the indexed aspect, the paper proposes a theoretical framework in which "truth" is defined as a satisfaction relation, and this relation is further axiomatized in logical environments. 2. **Maintaining the Invariance of the Architecture of Truth**: The paper proves that this Architecture of Truth remains invariant under morphisms between logical environments. This means that consistency can be maintained between different logical systems, especially when describing and explaining the concept of "truth". 3. **Introduction of Logical Environments**: Although not every institution is a logical environment, every institution has an associated logical environment, which is defined by the classification of structures. Therefore, the paper provides a method by which different logical systems can be compared and made interoperable through their logical environments. ### Formula Representation The mathematical formulas involved in the paper mainly focus on the representation of category theory and logical systems. Here are several key formulas and their explanations: - **Satisfaction Relation**: \[ M \models_{\Sigma} T \] It represents that the structure \( M \) satisfies (models) the specification \( T \), where \( \Sigma \) is the language. - **Intention Mapping**: \[ \text{int}_{\Sigma}: \text{struc}(\Sigma) \to \text{spec}(\Sigma) \] It maps the \( \Sigma \)-structure \( M \) to its intended \( \Sigma \)-specification \( \text{int}_{\Sigma}(M) \). - **Natural Logic Functor**: \[ \hat{\text{nat}} = (1_{\text{struc}}, \text{int}): \text{struc} \Rightarrow \text{log} \] This functor maps structures to logic while maintaining the consistency of identity and intention mapping. These formulas help us understand how the theoretical framework proposed in the paper formally deals with the concept of "truth" and ensures the compatibility and consistency between different logical systems.