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
Abstract 354 | PDF Downloads 310

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

tonk, Dunn semantics, non-Tarskian logical consequence, non-transitivity

Section
ARTICLES