How we learned to stop worrying and love tonk
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published
09-08-2025
Luis Estrada-González
Christian Romero-Rodríguez
Abstract
According to common wisdom, the connective tonk defined by Prior trivializes any theory that contains it. However, it should not be forgotten that whether an argument holds or not depends to a large extent on the underlying notion of logical consequence. Logical consequence is usually assumed to be Tarskian, that is, reflexive, transitive and monotonic. However, Belnap had already conjectured that tonk might not be so problematic in a non-transitive logic, which Cook finally proved in 2005. In this paper we improve on Cook’s result in two ways: our hypothesis is simpler (namely, we use fewer interpretations than he did and we do not rely on a disjunctive consequence relation) and it is not ad hoc (namely, our working consequence relation is not designed merely to avoid triviality under tonk).
How to Cite
Estrada-González, L., & Romero-Rodríguez, C. (2025). How we learned to stop worrying and love tonk. THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.26626
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
tonk, Dunn semantics, non-Tarskian logical consequence, non-transitivity
Issue
Section
ARTICLES

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7211-3392