By using the schema one can give an inductive definition for the truth of compound sentences. Atomic sentences are assigned truth values disquotationally. For example, the sentence "'Snow is white' is true" becomes materially equivalent with the sentence "snow is white", i.e. 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white. Said again, a sentence of the form "A" is true if and only if A is true. The truth of more complex sentences is defined in terms of the components of the sentence:
Predicates for truth that meet all of these criteria are called "satisfaction classes", a notion often defined with respect to a fixed language (such as the language of Peano arithmetic); these classes are considered acceptable definitions for the notion of truth.2
Joseph Heath points out that "the analysis of the truth predicate provided by Tarski's Schema T is not capable of handling all occurrences of the truth predicate in natural language. In particular, Schema T treats only "freestanding" uses of the predicate—cases when it is applied to complete sentences."3 He gives as an "obvious problem" the sentence:
Heath argues that analyzing this sentence using T-schema generates the sentence fragment—"everything that Bill believes"—on the righthand side of the logical biconditional.
Künne, Wolfgang (2003). Conceptions of truth. Clarendon Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-19-928019-3. 978-0-19-928019-3 ↩
H. Kotlarski, Full Satisfaction Classes: A Survey (1991, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, p.573). Accessed 9 September 2022. https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.ndjfl/1093635929 ↩
Heath, Joseph (2001). Communicative action and rational choice. MIT Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-262-08291-4. 978-0-262-08291-4 ↩