By using algebraic-categorical tools, we establish four criteria in order to disprove canonicity, strong completeness, w-canonicity and strong w-completeness, respectively, of an intermediate propositional logic. We then apply the second criterion in order to get the following result: all the logics defined by extra-intuitionistic one-variable schemata, except four of them, are not strongly complete. We also apply the fourth criterion in order to prove that the Gabbay-de Jongh logic D1 is not strongly w-complete.

In [8] it is proved that all the intermediate logics axiomatizable by formulas in one variable, except four of them, are not strongly complete. We considerably improve this result by showing that all the intermediate logics axiomatizable by formulas in one variable, except eight of them, are not strongly ω-complete. Thus, a definitive classification of such logics with respect to the notions of canonicity, strong completeness, ω-canonicity and strong ω-completeness is given.

In the 80's Pierangelo Miglioli, starting from motivations in the framework of Abstract Data Types and Program Synthesis, introduced semiconstructive theories, a family of large subsystems of classical theories that guarantee the computability of functions and predicates represented by suitable formulas. In general, the above computability results are guaranteed by algorithms based on a recursive enumeration of the theorems of the whole system. In this paper we present a family of semiconstructive systems, we call uniformly semiconstructive, that provide computational procedures (...) only involving formulas with bounded complexity. We present several examples of uniformly semiconstructive systems containing Harrop theories, induction principles and some well-known predicate intermediate principles. Among these, we give an account of semiconstructive and uniformly semiconstructive systems which lie between Intuitionistic and Classical Arithmetic and we discuss their constructive incompatibility. (shrink)

We extend to the predicate frame a previous characterization of the maximal intermediate propositional constructive logics. This provides a technique to get maximal intermediate predicate constructive logics starting from suitable sets of classically valid predicate formulae we call maximal nonstandard predicate constructive logics. As an example of this technique, we exhibit two maximal intermediate predicate constructive logics, yet leaving open the problem of stating whether the two logics are distinct. Further properties of these logics will be also investigated.