We introduce a family of matrices that define logics in which paraconsistency and/or paracompleteness occurs only at the level of literals, that is, formulas that are propositional letters or their iterated negations. We give a sound and complete axiomatization for the logic defined by the class of all these matrices, we give conditions for the maximality of these logics and we study in detail several relevant examples.

We study the algebraizability of the logics constructed using literal-paraconsistent and literal-paracomplete matrices described by Lewin and Mikenberg in [11], proving that they are all algebraizable in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi in [3] but not finitely algebraizable. A characterization of the finitely algebraizable logics defined by LPP-matrices is given.We also make an algebraic study of the equivalent algebraic semantics of the logics associated to the matrices ℳ32,2, ℳ32,1, ℳ31,1, ℳ31,3, and ℳ4 appearing in [11] proving that they are (...) not varieties and finding the free algebra over one generator. (shrink)

Society Semantics, introduced by W. Carnielli and M. Lima-Marques, is a method for obtaining new logics from the combination of agents of a given logic. The goal of this paper is to present several generalizations of this method, as well as to show some applications to many-valued logics. After a reformulation of Society Semantics in a wider setting, we develop in detail two examples of application of the new formalism, characterizing a hierarchy of paraconsistent logics called Pn and a hierarchy (...) of paracomplete logics In. We also propose three further generalizations, obtaining Society Semantics for several many-valued logics, including a hierarchy of logics called In Pk which are both paraconsistent and paracomplete. (shrink)

This paper introduces new logical systems which axiomatize a formal representation of inconsistency (here taken to be equivalent to contradictoriness) in classical logic. We start from an intuitive semantical account of inconsistent data, fixing some basic requirements, and provide two distinct sound and complete axiomatics for such semantics, LFI1 and LFI2, as well as their first-order extensions, LFI1* and LFI2*, depending on which additional requirements are considered. These formal systems are examples of what we dub Logics of Formal Inconsistency (LFI) (...) and form part of a much larger family of similar logics. We also show that there are translations from classical and paraconsistent first-order logics into LFI1* and LFI2*, and back. Hence, despite their status as subsystems of classical logic, LFI1* and LFI2* can codify any classical or paraconsistent reasoning. (shrink)