We examine the proof-theoretic verificationist justification procedure proposed by Dummett. After some scrutiny, two distinct interpretations with respect to bases are advanced: the independent and the dependent interpretation. We argue that both are unacceptable as a semantics for propositional intuitionistic logic.

Boolos has suggested a plural interpretation of second-order logic for two purposes: to escape Quine’s allegation that second-order logic is set theory in disguise, and to avoid the paradoxes arising if the second-order variables are given a set-theoretic interpretation in second-order set theory. Since the plural interpretation accounts only for monadic second-order logic, Rayo and Yablo suggest an new interpretation for polyadic second-order logic in a Boolosian spirit. The present paper argues that Rayo and Yablo’s interpretation does not achieve the (...) goal. (shrink)

RésuméOn défend ici l'idée que la définition des notions sémantiques à l'aide des fonctions de probabilité devrait être vue non pas comme une généralisation de la sémantique standard en termes d'assignations de valeurs de vérité, mais plutôt comme une généralisation aux degrés de conséquence logique, de la caractérisation de la relation de conséquence que l'on retrouve dans le calcul des séquents de Gentzen.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a class of semantic tableau systems for some counterfactual logics. All in all I will discuss 1024 systems. Possible world semantics is used to interpret our formal languages. Soundness results are obtained for every tableau system and completeness results for a large subclass of these.

We present an interdisciplinary approach to argumentation combining logical, probabilistic, and psychological perspectives. We investigate logical attack principles which relate attacks among claims with logical form. For example, we consider the principle that an argument that attacks another argument claiming A triggers the existence of an attack on an argument featuring the stronger claim A ∧ B. We formulate a number of such principles pertaining to conjunctive, disjunctive, negated, and implicational claims. Some of these attack principles seem to be prima (...) facie more plausible than others. To support this intuition, we suggest an interpretation of these principles in terms of coherent conditional probabilities. This interpretation is naturally generalized from qualitative to quantitative principles. Specifically, we use our probabilistic semantics to evaluate the rationality of principles which govern the strength of argumentative attacks. In order to complement our theoretical analysis with an empirical perspective, we present an experiment with students of the TU Vienna ( n = 139) which explores the psychological plausibility of selected attack principles. We also discuss how our qualitative attack principles relate to well-known types of logical argumentation frameworks. Finally, we briefly discuss how our approach relates to the computational argumentation literature. (shrink)

Proofs from assumptions are amongst the most fundamental reasoning techniques. Yet the precise nature of assumptions is still an open topic. One of the most prominent conceptions is the placeholder view of assumptions generally associated with natural deduction for intuitionistic propositional logic. It views assumptions essentially as holes in proofs, either to be filled with closed proofs of the corresponding propositions via substitution or withdrawn as a side effect of some rule, thus in effect making them an auxiliary notion subservient (...) to proper propositions. The Curry–Howard correspondence is typically viewed as a formal counterpart of this conception. I will argue against this position and show that even though the Curry–Howard correspondence typically accommodates the placeholder view of assumptions, it is rather a matter of choice, not a necessity, and that another more assumption-friendly view can be adopted. (shrink)

In this paper we examine two approaches to the formal treatment of the notion of problem in the paradigm of algorithmic semantics. Namely, we will explore an approach based on Martin-Löf’s Constructive Type Theory, which can be seen as a direct continuation of Kolmogorov’s original calculus of problems, and an approach utilizing Tichý’s Transparent Intensional Logic, which can be viewed as a non-constructive attempt of interpreting Kolmogorov’s logic of problems. In the last section we propose Kolmogorov and CTT-inspired modifications to (...) TIL-based approach. The focus will be on non-empirical problems only. (shrink)

This paper deals with Popper's little-known work on deductive logic, published between 1947 and 1949. According to his theory of deductive inference, the meaning of logical signs is determined by certain rules derived from ?inferential definitions? of those signs. Although strong arguments have been presented against Popper's claims (e.g. by Curry, Kleene, Lejewski and McKinsey), his theory can be reconstructed when it is viewed primarily as an attempt to demarcate logical from non-logical constants rather than as a semantic foundation for (...) logic. A criterion of logicality is obtained which is based on conjunction, implication and universal quantification as fundamental logical operations. (shrink)

What is a minimal proof-theoretical foundation of logic? Two different ways to answer this question may appear to offer themselves: reduce the whole of logic either to the relation of inference, or else to the property of incompatibility. The first way would involve defining logical operators in terms of the algebraic properties of the relation of inference—with conjunction $$\hbox {A}\wedge \hbox {B}$$ A ∧ B as the infimum of A and B, negation $$\lnot \hbox {A}$$ ¬ A as the minimal (...) incompatible of A, etc. The second way involves introducing logical operators in terms of the relation of incompatibility, such that X is incompatible with $$\{\lnot \hbox {A}\}$$ { ¬ A } iff every Y incompatible with X is incompatible with {A}; and X is incompatible with $$\{\hbox {A}\!\wedge \!\hbox {B}\}$$ { A ∧ B } iff X is incompatible with {A,B}; etc. Whereas the first route leads us naturally to intuitionistic logic, the second leads us to classical logic. The aim of this paper is threefold: to investigate the relationship of the two approaches within a very general framework, to discuss the viability of erecting logic on such austere foundations, and to find out whether choosing one of the ways we are inevitably led to a specific logical system. (shrink)

The entire development of modern logic is characterized by various forms of confrontation of what has come to be called proof theory with what has earned the label of model theory. For a long time the widely accepted view was that while model theory captures directly what logical formalisms are about, proof theory is merely our technical means of getting some incomplete grip on this; but in recent decades the situation has altered. Not only did proof theory expand into new (...) realms, generalizing the concept of proof in various directions; many philosophers also realized that meaning may be seen as primarily consisting in certain rules rather than in language-world links. However, the possibility of construing meaning as an inferential role is often seen as essentially compromised by the limits of prooftheoretical means. The aim of this paper is to sort out the cluster of problems besetting logical inferentialism by disentangling and clarifying one of them, namely determining the power of various inferential frameworks as measured by that of explicitly semantic ones. (shrink)

Axiomatic systems can be understood as subsets of syntactic systems. By a process of increasing abstraction, the notion of a syntactic system can become useful for understanding Meillassoux’s concept of hyper-Chaos.

I show that propositional intuitionistic logic is complete with respect to an adaptation of Dummett’s pragmatist justification procedure. In particular, given a pragmatist justification of an argument, I show how to obtain a natural deduction derivation of the conclusion of the argument from, at most, the same assumptions.

Given an intermediate prepositional logic L, denote by L –d its disjuctionless fragment. We introduce an infinite sequence {J n}n1 of propositional formulas, and prove:(1)For any L: L –d =I –d (I=intuitionistic logic) if and only if J n L for every n 1.

Tableau formulations are given for the relevance logics E (Entailment), R (Relevant implication) and RM (Mingle). Proofs of equivalence to modus-ponens-based formulations are vialeft-handed Gentzen sequenzen-kalküle. The tableau formulations depend on a detailed analysis of the structure of tableau rules, leading to certain global requirements. Relevance is caught by the requirement that each node must be used; modality is caught by the requirement that only certain rules can cross a barrier. Open problems are discussed.

Peirce wrote in late 1901 a text on formal logic using a special Dragon-Head and Dragon-Tail notation in order to express the relation of logical consequence and its properties. These texts have not been referred to in the literature before. We provide a complete reconstruction and transcription of these previously unpublished sets of manuscript sheets and analyse their main content. In the reconstructed text, Peirce is seen to outline both a general theory of deduction and a general theory of consequence (...) relation. The two are the cornerstones of modern logic and have played a crucial role in its development. From the wider perspective, Peirce is led to these theories by three important generalizations: propositions to all signs, truth to scriptibility, and derivation to transformability. We provide an exposition of such proposed semiotic foundation for logical constants and point out a couple of further innovations in this rare text, including the sheet of assertion, correction as a dual of deduction and the nature of conditionals as variably strict conditionals. (shrink)

In Posterior Analytics 1.3, Aristotle advances three arguments against circular proof. The third argument relies on his discussion of circular proof in Prior Analytics 2.5. This is problematic because the two chapters seem to deal with two rather disparate conceptions of circular proof. In Posterior Analytics 1.3, Aristotle gives a purely propositional account of circular proof, whereas in Prior Analytics 2.5 he gives a more complex, syllogistic account. My aim is to show that these problems can be solved, and that (...) Aristotle’s third argument in 1.3 is successful. I argue that both chapters are concerned with the same conception of circular proof, namely the propositional one. Contrary to what is often thought, the syllogistic conception provides an adequate analysis of the internal deductive structure of the propositional one. Aristotle achieves this by employing a kind of multiple-conclusion logic. (shrink)

We present nested sequent systems for propositional Gödel-Dummett logic and its first-order extensions with non-constant and constant domains, built atop nested calculi for intuitionistic logics. To obtain nested systems for these Gödel-Dummett logics, we introduce a new structural rule, called the linearity rule, which (bottom-up) operates by linearising branching structure in a given nested sequent. In addition, an interesting feature of our calculi is the inclusion of reachability rules, which are special logical rules that operate by propagating data and/or checking (...) if data exists along certain paths within a nested sequent. Such rules require us to generalise our nested sequents to include signatures (i.e. finite collections of variables) in the first-order cases, thus giving rise to a generalisation of the usual nested sequent formalism. Our calculi exhibit favourable properties, admitting the height-preserving invertibility of every logical rule and the (height-preserving) admissibility of a large collection of structural and reachability rules. We prove all of our systems sound and cut-free complete, and show that syntactic cut-elimination obtains for the intuitionistic systems. We conclude the paper by discussing possible extensions and modifications, putting forth an array of structural rules that could be used to provide a sizable class of intermediate logics with cut-free nested sequent systems. (shrink)

The double negation has always been considered by the logical systems from ancient times to the present. In fact, that is an issue that the current syntactic theories studying human reasoning, for example, the mental logic theory, address today. However, in this paper, I claim that, in the case of some languages such as Spanish, the double negation causes problems for the cognitive theories mainly based on formal schemata and supporting the idea of a universal syntax of thought in the (...) human mind. Thus, I propose that, given those problems, semantic frameworks such as that of the mental models theory seem to be more appropriate for explaining the human inferential activity. (shrink)

It is usually said that there is a clear difference between pre-philosophical texts such as Homer’s Iliad and what is provided in the fragments corresponding to first philosophers such as Thales of Miletus. This paper tries to show that this is not undoubtedly so, and it does that by means of the analysis of a fragment of the Iliad in which Hypnos is speaking. In this way, the main argument is that, while the fragment can be interpreted both in a (...) literal and in a metaphorical or poetic sense, in both of those cases it can be thought that it is related to philosophy or rational thinking. If the interpretation is literal, the fragment expresses an idea very akin to an important thesis by Thales of Miletus. On the other hand, if the interpretation is metaphorical or poetic, we have to assume, following several contemporary reasoning theories, that the fragment is essentially based on an evident rational inference. (shrink)

This paper is intended to address the work “Against logical form”, authored by Johnson-Laird in 2010. In it, based on the theory of mental models, Johnson-Laird claims that the way people interpret sentences in natural language has nothing to do with logic. This is because that action is not related to logical forms. According to him, the mental activity is mainly linked to semantics and pragmatics. However, here, following arguments provided by López-Astorga, I try to show that the theory of (...) mental models can be linked to syntactic structures. My main point is made by dealing with an argument given in the mentioned Johnson-Laird’s paper. In principle, that argument seems to undermine proposals such as that of López-Astorga. However, the present work proposes otherwise. (shrink)

Resumen Atendiendo a la lógica estándar, solo uno de los cinco indemostrables propuestos por Crisipo de Solos es realmente indemostrable. Sus otros cuatro esquemas son demostrables en tal lógica. La pregunta, por tanto, es: si cuatro de ellos no son verdaderamente indemostrables, por qué Crisipo consideró que sí lo eran. López-Astorga mostró que si ignoramos el cálculo proposicional estándar y asumimos que una teoría cognitiva contemporánea, la teoría de la lógica mental, describe correctamente el razonamiento humano, se puede entender por (...) qué Crisipo pensó que todos sus indemostrables eran tan básicos. No obstante, en este trabajo trato de argumentar que la teoría de la lógica mental no es el único marco que puede explicar esto. En concreto, sostengo que otra importante teoría sobre el razonamiento en el presente, la teoría de los modelos mentales, también puede ofrecer una explicación al respecto.According to standard logic, only one of the five indemonstrables proposed by Chrysippus of Soli is actually indemonstrable. The other four schemata are demonstra-ble in that logic. The question hence is, if four of them are not really indemonstrable, why Chrysippus considered them to be so. López-Astorga showed that, if we ignore standard propositional calculus and assume that a current cognitive theory, the mental logic theory, truly describes human reasoning, it can be explained why Chrysippus thought that all of his indemonstrables were so basic. However, in this paper, I try to argue that the mental logic theory is not the only framework that can account for that. In particular, I hold that another important reasoning theory at present, the mental models theory, can offer an explanation in that regard as well. (shrink)

There is an Aristotelian thesis that can be considered controversial. That is the thesis related to a denied conditional with only one propositional variable and in which, in addition, one of its clauses is also denied. While the thesis is not a tautology, people tend to accept it as true. Pfeifer’s approach can account for this fact. However, I try to show that this problem can also be explained from other alternative frameworks, in particular, from that of the mental models (...) theory, that of López-Astorga based on the pragmatic phenomenon of conditional perfection, and that of the mental logic theory. Likewise, I indicate the difficulties regarding Aristotle’s thesis of the mental models theory and López-Astorga’s proposal, and conclude that the account of the mental logic theory is the strongest alternative to Pfeifer’s explanation and that what is clearly obvious is that conditional should not be materially interpreted. (shrink)

Legal terms, such as “ownership,”“contract,”“validity,”“negligence,” are used as middle terms in legal deduction. The paper distinguishes two problems regarding this use. One is the logical function of terms for deduction within a normative system. Specific problems dealt with in this connection are meaning, definition, and economy of expression. The other problem connected with middle terms is the “moulding” and possible manipulation of the meaning of legal terms, for arriving at desired conclusions in a given scheme of inference. It is indicated (...) how the moulding of contested legal concepts, if not restricted, will obscure the ratio of legal rules. This problem is relevant, inter alia, to arguments ex analogia in the law. (shrink)

Non-classical negations may fail to be contradictory-forming operators in more than one way, and they often fail also to respect fundamental meta-logical properties such as the replacement property. Such drawbacks are witnessed by intricate semantics and proof systems, whose philosophical interpretations and computational properties are found wanting. In this paper we investigate congruential non-classical negations that live inside very natural systems of normal modal logics over complete distributive lattices; these logics are further enriched by adjustment connectives that may be used (...) for handling reasoning under uncertainty caused by inconsistency or undeterminedness. Using such straightforward semantics, we study the classes of frames characterized by seriality, reflexivity, functionality, symmetry, transitivity, and some combinations thereof, and discuss what they reveal about sub-classical properties of negation. To the logics thereby characterized we apply a general mechanism that allows one to endow them with analytic ordinary sequent systems, most of which are even cut-free. We also investigate the exact circumstances that allow for classical negation to be explicitly defined inside our logics. (shrink)

ABSTRACTIn this paper, we present a generalisation of proof simulation procedures for Frege systems by Bonet and Buss to some logics for which the deduction theorem does not hold. In particular, we study the case of finite-valued Łukasiewicz logics. To this end, we provide proof systems and which augment Avron's Frege system HŁuk with nested and general versions of the disjunction elimination rule, respectively. For these systems, we provide upper bounds on speed-ups w.r.t. both the number of steps in proofs (...) and the length of proofs. We also consider Tamminga's natural deduction and Avron's hypersequent calculus GŁuk for 3-valued Łukasiewicz logic and generalise our results considering the disjunction elimination rule to all finite-valued Łukasiewicz logics. (shrink)

In this note, we will study four implicational logicsB, BI, BB and BBI. In [5], Martin and Meyer proved that a formula is provable inBB if and only if is provable inBBI and is not of the form of » . Though it gave a positive solution to theP - W problem, their method was semantical and not easy to grasp. We shall give a syntactical proof of the syntactical relation betweenBB andBBI logics. It also includes a syntactical proof of (...) Powers and Dwyer's theorem that is proved semantically in [5]. Moreover, we shall establish the same relation betweenB andBI logics asBB andBBI logics. This relation seems to say thatB logic is meaningful, and so we think thatB logic is the weakest among meaningful logics. Therefore, by Theorem 1.1, our Gentzentype system forBI logic may be regarded as the most basic among all meaningful logics. It should be mentioned here that the first syntactical proof ofP - W problem is given by Misao Nagayama [6]. (shrink)

We study two logics of knowledge and belief stemming from the work of Stalnaker, omitting positive introspection for knowledge. The two systems are equivalent with positive introspection, but not without. We show that while the logic of beliefs remains unaffected by omitting introspection for knowledge in one system, it brings significant changes to the other. The resulting logic of belief is non-normal, and its complete axiomatization uses an infinite hierarchy of coherence constraints. We conclude by returning to the philosophical interpretation (...) underlying both models of belief, showing that neither is strong enough to support a probabilistic interpretation, nor an interpretation in terms of certainty or the “mental component” of knowledge. (shrink)

We give a proof-theoretic and algorithmic complexity analysis for systems introduced by Morrill to serve as the core of the CatLog categorial grammar parser. We consider two recent versions of Morrill’s calculi, and focus on their fragments including multiplicative connectives, additive conjunction and disjunction, brackets and bracket modalities, and the! subexponential modality. For both systems, we resolve issues connected with the cut rule and provide necessary modifications, after which we prove admissibility of cut. We also prove algorithmic undecidability for both (...) calculi, and show that categorial grammars based on them can generate arbitrary recursively enumerable languages. (shrink)

We present sound and complete semantics and a sequent calculus for the Lambek calculus extended with intuitionistic propositional logic.

This paper studies the relationship between Argumentation Logic, a recently defined logic based on the study of argumentation in AI, and classical Propositional Logic. In particular, it shows that AL and PL are logically equivalent in that they have the same entailment relation from any given classically consistent theory. This equivalence follows from a correspondence between the non-acceptability of sentences in AL and Natural Deduction proofs of the complement of these sentences. The proof of this equivalence uses a restricted form (...) of ND proofs, where hypotheses in the application of the Reductio of Absurdum inference rule are required to be “relevant” to the absurdity derived in the rule. The paper also discusses how the argumentative re-interpretation of PL could help control the application of ex-falso quodlibet in the presence of inconsistencies. (shrink)

We present an inferentialist account of the epistemic modal operator might. Our starting point is the bilateralist programme. A bilateralist explains the operator not in terms of the speech act of rejection ; we explain the operator might in terms of weak assertion, a speech act whose existence we argue for on the basis of linguistic evidence. We show that our account of might provides a solution to certain well-known puzzles about the semantics of modal vocabulary whilst retaining classical logic. (...) This demonstrates that an inferentialist approach to meaning can be successfully extended beyond the core logical constants. (shrink)

Gentzen’s singular sequential system of first-order logic was an alternative notation for his system of natural deductions. His multiple sequential system was his symmetric generalization that was more appropriate to classical logic. Beth’s tableaus system was a system that was derived directly from the semantic analysis of connectives and quantifiers. It was soon realized that the Beth’s system and the Gentzen’s multiple system were only notational variants of each other. Kneale’s system of multiple natural deductions was a generalization of Gentzen’s (...) system of natural deductions. We prove that Kneale’s natural deductions are also a notational variant of Beth’s tableaus. (shrink)

For any extension $T$ of $I\Sigma_{1}$ having a cut-elimination property extending that of $I\Sigma_{1}$ , the number of different proofs that can be obtained by cut elimination from a single $T$ -proof cannot be bound by a function which is provably total in $T$.

We define a generalization of the first-order cut-elimination method CERES to higher-order logic. At the core of lies the computation of an set of sequents from a proof π of a sequent S. A refutation of in a higher-order resolution calculus can be used to transform cut-free parts of π into a cut-free proof of S. An example illustrates the method and shows that can produce meaningful cut-free proofs in mathematics that traditional cut-elimination methods cannot reach.

A rejection system, also referred to as a complementary calculus, is a proof system axiomatising the invalid formulas of a logic, in contrast to traditional calculi which axiomatise the valid ones. Rejection systems therefore introduce a purely syntactic way of determining non-validity without having to consider countermodels, which can be useful in procedures for automated deduction and proof search. Rejection calculi have first been formally introduced by Łukasiewicz in the context of Aristotelian syllogistic and subsequently rejection systems for many well-known (...) logics have been proposed. In this paper, we deal with rejection systems for so-called non-deterministic finite-valued logics, a special case of non-deterministic many-valued logics which were introduced by Avron and Lev as a generalisation of traditional many-valued logics. More specifically, we introduce a systematic method for constructing sequent-style rejection systems for any given non-deterministic finite-valued logic. Furthermore, as special instances of our method, we provide concrete calculi for specific paraconsistent logics which can be characterised in terms of non-deterministic two- and three-valued semantics, respectively. (shrink)