Skip to main content

Probability for the Revision Theory of Truth


We investigate how to assign probabilities to sentences that contain a type-free truth predicate. These probability values track how often a sentence is satisfied in transfinite revision sequences, following Gupta and Belnap’s revision theory of truth. This answers an open problem by Leitgeb which asks how one might describe transfinite stages of the revision sequence using such probability functions. We offer a general construction, and explore additional constraints that lead to desirable properties of the resulting probability function. One such property is Leitgeb’s Probabilistic Convention T, which says that the probability of φ equals the probability that φ is true.


  1. Benci, V., Di Nasso, M., Forti, M. (2006). An Aristotelian notion of size. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 143(1-3), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Benci, V., Horsten, L., Wenmackers, S. (2013). Non-Archimedean probability. Milan Journal of Mathematics, 81(1), 121–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Benci, V., Horsten, L., Wenmackers, S. (2018). Infinitesimal probabilities. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 69(2).

  4. Brickhill, H., & Horsten, L. (2018). Triangulating non-Archimedean probability. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1–28.

  5. Campbell-Moore, C. (2018). Limits in the revision theory: more than just definite verdicts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, this edition.

  6. Gupta, A., & Belnap, N.D. (1993). The revision theory of truth. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Horsten, L., Leigh, G.E., Leitgeb, H., Welch, P. (2012). Revision revisited. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(4), 642–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Joyce, J. (2009). Accuracy and coherence prospects for an alethic epistemology of partial beliefs. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Leitgeb, H. (2008). On the probabilistic convention T. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1(02), 218–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Leitgeb, H. (2012). From type-free truth to type-free probability. In Restall, G., & Russel, G. (Eds.) New Waves in philosophical logic (pp. 84–94). Palgrave Macmillan.

  11. Lewis, D. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In Jeffrey, R. (Ed.) Studies in inductive logic and probability, (Vol. 2 pp. 263–293). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

  12. Rivello, E. (2015). Periodicity and reflexivity in revision sequences. Studia Logica, 103(6), 1279–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Roeper, P., & Leblanc, H. (1999). Probability theory and probability logic. University of Toronto Press.

  14. Welch, P.D. (2014). Some observations on truth hierarchies. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 7(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Williams, J.R.G. (2014). Probability and non-classical logic. In Hitchcock, C., & Hájek, A. (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy (pp. 248–276). Oxford University Press.

Download references


We would like to thank Philip Welch and Johannes Stern for helpful discussions on this topic, as well as anonymous referees for this journal for their helpful suggestions. Catrin Campbell-Moore would also like to thank Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where she was based as a Stipendiary Research Fellow while this paper was being written.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leon Horsten.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Campbell-Moore, C., Horsten, L. & Leitgeb, H. Probability for the Revision Theory of Truth. J Philos Logic 48, 87–112 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Liar paradox
  • Semantic paradox
  • Revision theory of truth
  • Probabilistic convention T