PhilArchive
open access
Is Stalnaker's Semantics Complete?
It is shown that one common formulation of Stalnaker's semantics for conditionals is incomplete: it has no sound and (strongly) complete proof system. At first, this seems to conflict with well-known completeness results for this semantics (e.g., Stalnaker and Thomason 1967; Stalnaker 1970 and Lewis 1973, ch. 6). As it turns out, it does not: these completeness results rely on another closely-related formulation of the semantics that is provably complete. Specifically, the difference comes down to how the Limit Assumption is stated. I close with some remarks about what this means for the logic of conditionals.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Structural Dependence, System Openness, and the Impossibility of Ultimate Grounding: A Minimal-Condition Theory of Explanatory Limits#99895
- The Three Prohibitions (Ω-Law)#98171
- Tempered pragmatism#764467
- Selected-Legal Nullity: A Philosophy of Law from Gappy Text, Interpretive Selection, Certificate Channels, and Attribute Failure#170346
- Logic of Implicit and Explicit Justifiers#736526
Record · ID 80021
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive