In this paper, Carnap's modal logic C is reconstructed. It is shown that the Carnapian approach enables us to create some epistemic logics in a relatively straightforward way. These epistemic modifications of C are axiomatized and one of them is compared with intuitionistic logic. At the end of the paper, some connections between this epistemic logic and Medvedev's logic of finite problems and inquisitive semantics are shortly discussed.

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)

In this paper, we define some consequence relations based on supervaluation semantics for partial models, and we investigate their properties. For our main consequence relation, we show that natural versions of the following fail: upwards and downwards Lowenheim-Skolem, axiomatizability, and compactness. We also consider an alternate version for supervaluation semantics, and show both axiomatizability and compactness for the resulting consequence relation.

The question, "Which modal logic is the right one for logical necessity?," divides into two questions, one about model-theoretic validity, the other about proof-theoretic demonstrability. The arguments of Halldén and others that the right validity argument is S5, and the right demonstrability logic includes S4, are reviewed, and certain common objections are argued to be fallacious. A new argument, based on work of Supecki and Bryll, is presented for the claim that the right demonstrability logic must be contained in S5, (...) and a more speculative argument for the claim that it does not include S4.2 is also presented. (shrink)

In this paper I argue against the commonly received view that Kripke's formal Possible World Semantics (PWS) reflects the adoption of a metaphysical interpretation of the modal operators. I consider in detail Kripke's three main innovations vis-à-vis Carnap's PWS: a new view of the worlds, variable domains of quantification, and the adoption of a notion of universal validity. I argue that all these changes are driven by the natural technical development of the model theory and its related notion of validity: (...) they are dictated by merely formal considerations, not interpretive concerns. I conclude that Kripke's model theoretic semantics does not induce a metaphysical reading of necessity, and is formally adequate independently of the specific interpretation of the modal operators. (shrink)

In this paper, we present Carnap’s modal logic C, which is one of the first attempts to use the concept of possible world in shaping the semantics for modalities. Some older technical results, which concern the logic C, are summarized, namely two different kinds of axiomatization of C, one unusual characterization of C as the only set of formulae having one special property, and semantical and syntactical relations of C to S5. The fact that C is not closed under the (...) universal substitution is shortly discussed. Finally, the predicate version of C, which is not axiomatizable, is defined. (shrink)