Abstract: Abstract In this paper I examine Avicenna’s conception of the consequence relation. I will consider in particular his categorical and hypothetical logics. I will first analyse his definition of the implication and will show that this relation is not a consequence relation in his frame. Unlike the medieval logicians, he does not distinguish explicitly between material and formal consequences. The arguments discussed in al-Qiyās, where the conclusion is true only in some matters, and would seem close to a material consequence for that reason, are rejected explicitly as not syllogistic. He also rejects the ‘enthymemes’ unless they are complemented by their missing premise and the superfluous premises which, according to him, should promptly be ruled out. It seems then that the consequence relation in his theory is formal. It can be characterized as being ‘productivity in all matters’ or ‘necessary truth preserving’. It is illustrated by some (but not all) single premise arguments, and above all by all kinds of syllogisms which, in his theory, are more numerous and various than in Aristotle’s one. The syllogism may contain two or more premises, including disjunctive ones. When it is hypothetical, it may lead to several conclusions. The premises may be in conflict, but then, the conclusion is false. He thus rejects the principle according to which ‘anything follows from a contradiction’. But, unlike what some scholars say, he does not admit any connexive principle. In the compound syllogisms, the conclusion follows by steps, each step taking two premises at once. PubDate: 2019-03-01

Abstract: Abstract We study structural rules in the context of multi-valued logics with finitely-many truth-values. We first extend Gentzen’s traditional structural rules to a multi-valued logic context; in addition, we propos some novel structural rules, fitting only multi-valued logics. Then, we propose a novel definition, namely, structural rules completeness of a collection of structural rules, requiring derivability of the restriction of consequence to atomic formulas by structural rules only. The restriction to atomic formulas relieves the need to concern logical rules in the derivation. PubDate: 2019-03-01

Abstract: Abstract We assess the celebration of the 1st World Logic Day which recently took place all over the world. We then answer the question Why a World Logic Day' in two steps. First we explain why promoting logic, emphasizing its fundamental importance and its relations with many other fields. Secondly we examine the sense of a one-day celebration: how this can help reinforcing logic day-to-day and why logic deserves it. We make a comparison with other existing one-day celebrations. We end by presenting and commenting the logo of the World Logic Day. PubDate: 2019-03-01

Abstract: Abstract We present dualities (discrete duality, duality via truth and Stone duality) for implicative and (co)residuated lattices. In combination with our recent article on a discrete duality for lattices with unary modal operators, the present article contributes in filling in a gap in the development of Orłowska and Rewitzky’s research program of discrete dualities, which seemed to have stumbled on the case of non-distributive lattices with operators. We discuss dualities via truth, which are essential in relating the non-distributive logic of two-sorted frames with their sorted, residuated modal logic, as well as full Stone duality for (co)residuated lattices. Our results have immediate applications to the semantics of related substructural (resource consious) logical calculi. PubDate: 2019-03-01

Abstract: Abstract Gentzen-type sequent calculi GBD+, GBDe, GBD1, and GBD2 are respectively introduced for De and Omori’s axiomatic extensions BD+, BDe, BD1, and BD2 of Belnap–Dunn logic by adding classical negation. These calculi are constructed based on a small modification of the original characteristic axiom scheme for negated implication. Theorems for syntactically and semantically embedding these calculi into a Gentzen-type sequent calculus LK for classical logic are proved. The cut-elimination, decidability, and completeness theorems for these calculi are obtained using these embedding theorems. Similar results excluding cut-elimination results are also obtained for alternative Gentzen-type sequent calculi gBD+, gBDe, gBD1, and gBD2 for BD+, BDe, BD1, and BD2, respectively. These alternative calculi are constructed based on the original characteristic axiom scheme for negated implication. PubDate: 2019-03-01

Abstract: Abstract This paper presents, assesses, and compares six diagrammatic methods for Categorical Syllogistic. Venn’s Method is widely used in logic textbooks; Carroll’s Method is a topologically indistinguishable version of Venn’s Method; and the four remaining methods are my own: the Dual of Carroll’s Method, Gardner’s Method, Gardner–Peirce’s Method, and Ladd’s Method. These methods are divided into two groups of three and the reasons for switching from a method to another within each group are discussed. Finally, a comparison between the Dual of Carroll’s Method and Ladd’s Method supports the main result of the paper, which is an approximation of the two groups of methods. PubDate: 2019-03-01

Abstract: Abstract We study the amalgamation property in positive logic, where we shed light on some connections between the amalgamation property, Robinson theories, model-complete theories and the Hausdorff property. PubDate: 2018-11-29

Abstract: Abstract Płonka sums consist of an algebraic construction similar, in some sense, to direct limits, which allows to represent classes of algebras defined by means of regular identities (namely those equations where the same set of variables appears on both sides). Recently, Płonka sums have been connected to logic, as they provide algebraic semantics to logics obtained by imposing a syntactic filter to given logics. In this paper, I present a very general topological duality for classes of algebras admitting a Płonka sum representation in terms of dualisable algebras. PubDate: 2018-11-01

Abstract: A possibility of defining logical constants within abstract logical frameworks is discussed, in relation to abstract definition of logical consequence. We propose using duals as a general method of applying the idea of invariance under replacement as a criterion for logicality. PubDate: 2018-11-01

Abstract: Abstract Logics that have many truth values—more than just True and False—have been argued to be useful in the analysis of very many philosophical and linguistic puzzles (as well, sometimes, in various computational-oriented tasks). In this paper, which is a followup to (Hazen and Pelletier in K3, Ł3, LP, RM3, A3, FDE, M: How to make many-valued logics work for you. Winning paper for the Canadian Schotch-Jennings Prize, one of the prizes of the Universal Logic competition in 2018; Notre Dame J Form Log 59, 2018), we will start with a particularly well-motivated four-valued logic that has been studied mainly in its propositional and first-order versions. And we will then investigate its second-order version. This four-valued logic has two natural three-valued extensions: what is called a “gap logic” (some formulas are neither True nor False), and what is called a “glut logic” (some formulas are both True and False). We mention various results about the second-order version of these logics as well. And we then follow our earlier papers, where we had added a specific conditional connective to the three valued logics, and now add that connective to the four-valued logic under consideration. We then show that, although this addition is “conservative” in the sense that no new theorems are generated in the four-valued logic unless they employ this new conditional in their statement, nevertheless the resulting second-order versions of these logics with and without the conditional are quite different in important ways. We close with a moral for logical investigations in this realm. PubDate: 2018-11-01

Abstract: Abstract We continue the investigations initiated in the recent papers (Brown et al. in The modal logic of Bayesian belief revision, 2017; Gyenis in Standard Bayes logic is not finitely axiomatizable, 2018) where Bayes logics have been introduced to study the general laws of Bayesian belief revision. In Bayesian belief revision a Bayesian agent revises (updates) his prior belief by conditionalizing the prior on some evidence using the Bayes rule. In this paper we take the more general Jeffrey formula as a conditioning device and study the corresponding modal logics that we call Jeffrey logics, focusing mainly on the countable case. The containment relations among these modal logics are determined and it is shown that the logic of Bayes and Jeffrey updating are very close. It is shown that the modal logic of belief revision determined by probabilities on a finite or countably infinite set of elementary propositions is not finitely axiomatizable. The significance of this result is that it clearly indicates that axiomatic approaches to belief revision might be severely limited. PubDate: 2018-11-01

Abstract: Abstract Correspondence analysis is Kooi and Tamminga’s universal approach which generates in one go sound and complete natural deduction systems with independent inference rules for tabular extensions of many-valued functionally incomplete logics. Originally, this method was applied to Asenjo–Priest’s paraconsistent logic of paradox LP. As a result, one has natural deduction systems for all the logics obtainable from the basic three-valued connectives of LP (which is built in the \( \{\vee ,\wedge ,\lnot \} \) -language) by the addition of unary and binary connectives. Tamminga has also applied this technique to the paracomplete analogue of LP, strong Kleene logic \( \mathbf K_3 \) . In this paper, we generalize these results for the negative fragments of LP and \( \mathbf K_3 \) , respectively. Thus, the method of correspondence analysis works for the logics which have the same negations as LP or \( \mathbf K_3 \) , but either have different conjunctions or disjunctions or even don’t have them as well at all. Besides, we show that correspondence analyses for the negative fragments of \( \mathbf K_3 \) and LP, respectively, are also suitable without any changes for the negative fragments of Heyting’s logic \( \mathbf G_3 \) and its dual \( \mathbf DG_3 \) (which have different interpretations of negation than \( \mathbf K_3 \) and LP). PubDate: 2018-11-01

Abstract: Abstract In this work, we propose a meaningful extension of description logics for non-monotonic reasoning. We introduce \(\mathcal {ALCH}^{\bullet }\) , a logic allowing for the representation of and reasoning about both typical class-membership and typical instances of a relation. We propose a preferential semantics for \(\mathcal {ALCH}^{\bullet }\) in terms of partially-ordered DL interpretations which intuitively captures the notions of typicality we are interested in. We define a tableau-based algorithm for checking \(\mathcal {ALCH}^{\bullet }\) knowledge-base consistency that always terminates and we show that it is sound and complete w.r.t. our preferential semantics. The general framework we here propose can serve as the foundation for further exploration of non-monotonic reasoning in description logics and similarly structured logics. PubDate: 2018-11-01

Abstract: Abstract This article presents an approach to the semantics of non-distributive propositional logics that is based on a lattice representation (and duality) theorem that delivers a canonical extension of the lattice. Our approach supports both a plain Kripke-style semantics and, by restriction, a general frame semantics. Unlike the framework of generalized Kripke frames (RS-frames), the semantic approach presented in this article is suitable for modeling applied logics (such as temporal, or dynamic), as it respects the intended interpretation of the logical operators. This is made possible by restricting admissible interpretations. PubDate: 2018-11-01

Abstract: Abstract I discuss the origin and development of logic prizes around the world. In a first section I describe how I started this project by creating the Newton da Costa Logic Prize in Brazil in 2014. In a second section I explain how this idea was extended into the world through the manifesto A Logic Prize in Every Country! and how was organized the Logic Prizes Contest at the 6th UNILOG (World Congress and School on Universal Logic) in Vichy in June 2018 with the participation of 9 logic prizes winners from 9 countries. In a third section I discuss how this project will develop in the future with the creation of more logic prizes, an Encyclopædia of Logic, the book series Logic PhDs, as well as the creation of a World Logic Day, January 14, day of birth of Alfred Tarski and of death of Kurt Gödel. PubDate: 2018-11-01

Abstract: Abstract According to a very widespread interpretation of the metaphysical nature of quantum entities—the so-called Received View on quantum non-individuality—, quantum entities are non-individuals. Still according to this understanding, non-individuals are entities for which identity is restricted or else does not apply at all. As a consequence, it is said, such approach to quantum mechanics would require that classical logic be revised, given that it is somehow committed with the unrestricted validity of identity. In this paper we examine the arguments to the inadequacy of classical logic to deal with non-individuals, as previously defined, and argue that they fail to make a good case for logical revision. In fact, classical logic may accommodate non-individuals in that specific sense too. What is more pressing for the Received View, it seems, is not a revision of logic, but rather a more adequate metaphysical characterization of non-individuals. PubDate: 2018-11-01

Abstract: Abstract A general meta-logical theory is developed by considering ontological disputes in the systems of metaphysics. The usefulness of this general meta-logical theory is demonstrated by considering the case of the ontological dispute between the metaphysical systems of Lewis’ Modal Realism and Terence Parsons’ Meinongianism. Using Quine’s criterion of ontological commitments and his views on ontological disagreement, three principles of metalogic is formulated. Based on the three principles of metalogic, the notions of independent variable and dependent variable are introduced. Then, the ontological dispute between Lewis’ Modal Realism and Terence Parsons’ Meinongianism are restated in the light of the principles of metalogic. After the restatement, Independent variable and dependent variables are fixed in both Lewis’ Modal Realism and Terence Parsons’ Meinongianism to resolve the dispute. Subsequently, a new variety of quantifiers are introduced which is known as functionally isomorphic quantifiers to provide a formal representation of the resolution of the dispute. The specific functionally isomorphic quantifier which is developed in this work is known as st-quantifier. It is indicated that how st-quantifier which is one of the functionally isomorphic quantifiers can function like existential quantifier. It is also shown that there is some kind of inconsistency which is unavoidable in stating the ontological disagreement and therefore, paraconsistent logic is a requirement in stating the ontological disputes. PubDate: 2018-11-01

Abstract: Abstract I visited Professor Hintikka and discussed with him about ten times during my visit to Harvard University from 2000 to 2001. I can still vividly remember my first visit to him in his office and then Jaakko inviting me for lunch in the BU faculty club, including how I tried my best to ‘show’ my knowledge of Aristotle and Frege, with a hope that it was my first but not the last talk with him and how really excited I was when he kindly said to me after lunch: “You are welcome to visit me again at the same time in two weeks”. In my view Hintikka was a brilliant philosopher and logician, and also a very kind and engaging person from and with whom one can constantly learn new ideas without limitations. PubDate: 2018-08-28

Abstract: Abstract This paper compares Peirce’s and Hintikka’s logical philosophies and identifies a cross-section of similarities in their thoughts in the areas of action-first epistemology, pragmaticist meaning, philosophy of science, and philosophy of logic and mathematics. PubDate: 2018-08-14

Authors:Ori Lahav; João Marcos; Yoni Zohar Abstract: Abstract In the original publication, the corresponding author was indicated incorrectly. The correct corresponding author of the article should be Ori Lahav. The original article has been updated accordingly. PubDate: 2017-11-29 DOI: 10.1007/s11787-017-0183-2