Mathematicians often speak of conjectures, yet unproved, as probable or well-confirmed by evidence. The Riemann Hypothesis, for example, is widely believed to be almost certainly true. There seems no initial reason to distinguish such probability from the same notion in empirical science. Yet it is hard to see how there could be probabilistic relations between the necessary truths of pure mathematics. The existence of such logical relations, short of certainty, is defended using the theory of logical probability (or (...) objective Bayesianism or non-deductive logic), and some detailed examples of its use in mathematics surveyed. Examples of inductive reasoning in experimental mathematics are given and it is argued that the problem of induction is best appreciated in the mathematical case. (shrink)

Logic, in one of the many sense of that term, is a theory about what follows from what and why. Arguably, the correct theory has to be determined by abduction. Over recent years, so called logical anti-exceptionalists have investigated this matter. Current discussions have been restricted to deductive logic. However, there are also, of course, various forms of non-deductive reasoning. Indeed, abduction itself is one of these. What is to be said about the way of choosing the (...) best theory of non-deductive inferences? It would seem clear that an anti-exceptionalist should hold that essentially the same method of choice should apply to non-deductive logic. A number of issues need to be faced in the process, not the least of which is the circularity involved in an abductive justification for a theory of abduction. This paper discusses matters. (shrink)

Mathematicians often speak of conjectures as being confirmed by evidence that falls short of proof. For their own conjectures, evidence justifies further work in looking for a proof. Those conjectures of mathematics that have long resisted proof, such as Fermat's Last Theorem and the Riemann Hypothesis, have had to be considered in terms of the evidence for and against them. It is argued here that it is not adequate to describe the relation of evidence to hypothesis as `subjective', `heuristic' or (...) `pragmatic', but that there must be an element of what it is rational to believe on the evidence, that is, of non-deductive logic. (shrink)

Tarski implicitly postulated that a certain pre-theoretical concept of logical consequence and his technical concept of logical consequence are co-extensional. This chapter makes explicit a few theses about logical consequence or logical truth that sound Tarskian somehow, including one that most deserves the name ‘Tarski's Thesis’. Some of these theses are probably true or close to true but weaker than Tarski's. Some are false but stronger than Tarski's. Tarski's Thesis plausibly postulated that a sentence of a classical language possibly extended (...) with non-traditional extensional logical constants is logically true, if it is true in all classical interpretations of all its non-logical constants. But it is noted that this thesis turns out to be false on most conceptions of logical truth, for some sentences of a classical language extended with extensional logical constants are true in all classical interpretations of all its non-logical constants, but are not necessary. (shrink)

This is the 3rd edition. Although a number of new technological applications require classical deductive computation with non-classical logics, many key technologies still do well—or exclusively, for that matter—with classical logic. In this first volume, we elaborate on classical deductive computing with classical logic. The objective of the main text is to provide the reader with a thorough elaboration on both classical computing – a.k.a. formal languages and automata theory – and classical deduction with the classical first-order (...) predicate calculus with a view to computational implementations, namely in automated theorem proving and logic programming. The present third edition improves on the previous ones by providing an altogether more algorithmic approach: There is now a wholly new section on algorithms and there are in total fourteen clearly isolated algorithms designed in pseudo-code. Other improvements are, for instance, an emphasis on functions in Chapter 1 and more exercises with Turing machines. (shrink)

Resolution is an effective deduction procedure for classical logic. There is no similar "resolution" system for non-classical logics (though there are various automated deduction systems). The paper presents resolution systems for intuistionistic predicate logic as well as for modal and temporal logics within the framework of labelled deductive systems. Whereas in classical predicate logic resolution is applied to literals, in our system resolution is applied to L(abelled) R(epresentation) S(tructures). Proofs are discovered by a refutation procedure (...) defined on LRSs, that imposes a hierarchy on clause sets of such structures together with an inheritance discipline. This is a form of Theory Resolution. For intuitionistic logic these structures are called I(ntuitionistic) R(epresentation) S(tructures). Their hierarchical structure allows the restriction of unification of individual variables and/or constants without using Skolem functions. This structures must therefore be preserved when we consider other (non-modal) logics. Variations between different logics are captured by fine tuning of the inheritance properties of the hierarchy. For modal and temporal logics IRS's are extended to structures that represent worlds and/or times. This enables us to consider all kinds of combined logics. (shrink)

There exist valuable methods for theorem proving in non classical logics based on translation from these logics into first-order classical logic (abbreviated henceforth FOL). The key notion in these approaches istranslation from aSource Logic (henceforth abbreviated SL) to aTarget Logic (henceforth abbreviated TL). These methods are concerned with the problem offinding a proof in TL by translating a formula in SL, but they do not address the very important problem ofpresenting proofs in SL via a backward translation. (...) We propose a framework for presenting proofs in SL based on a partial backward translation of proofs obtained in a familiar TL: Order-Sorted Predicate Logic. The proposed backward translation transfers some formulasF TL belonging to the proof in TL into formulasF SL , such that the formulasF SL either (a) belong to a corresponding deduction in SL (in the best case) or, (b) are semantically related in some precise way, to formulas in the corresponding deduction in SL (in the worst case). The formulasF TL andF SL can obviously be considered aslemmas of their respective proofs. Therefore the transfer of lemmas of TL gives at least a skeleton of the corresponding proof in SL. Since the formulas of a proof keep trace of the strategy used to obtain the proof, clearly the framework can also help in solving another fundamental and difficult problem:the transfer of strategies from classical to non classical logics. We show how to apply the proposed framework, at least to S5, S4(p), K, T, K4. Two conjectures are stated and we propose sufficient (and in general satisfactory) conditions in order to obtain formulas in the proof in SL. Two particular cases of the conjectures are proved to be theorems. Three examples are treated in full detail. The main lines of future research are given. (shrink)

n this paper, a non-classical axiomatic system was introduced to classify all moods of Aristotelian syllogisms, in addition to the axiom "Every a is an a" and the bilateral rules of obversion of E and O propositions. This system consists of only 2 definitions, 2 axioms, 1 rule of a premise, and moods of Barbara and Datisi. By adding first-degree propositional negation to this system, we prove that the square of opposition holds without using many of the other rules of (...) classical logic (including double negation elimination). We then show that the Propositional Substructural Logic SLe is the best logic to study Aristotelian Syllogisms. Also, based on the IFLe square of opposition, the rules of conversation and the rules of negation are completely proved in Muzaffar's logic. For this purpose, we used the monadic first-order logic with the same standard deductive apparatus of quantifiers in classical logic, plus the axioms of "some a is an a" and "some not-a is a not-a". Finally, to show that there is no existential commitment to general terms in categorical logic, the Strong Four-Valued Relevant-classical Logic KR4 was used. With the same existential interpretation of the quantifiers and the standard translation of the quarter quantified. (shrink)

This introduction to the basic forms of deductive inference as evaluated by methods of modern symbolic logic is de­signed for sophomore-junior-level stu­dents ready to specialize in the study of deductive logic. It can be used also for an introductory logic course. The inde­pendence of many sections allows the instructor utmost flexibility. The text consists of eight chapters, the first six of which are designed to intro­duce the student to basic topics of sen­tence and predicate logic. The last two (...) chapters extend the procedures of the first six to alethic modal logic, the logic of imperatives, and deontic logic. Throughout the text there is an attempt to relate symbolic techniques to issues in the philosophy of logic. (shrink)

The term "non-monotonic logic" covers a family of formal frameworks devised to capture and represent defeasible inference , i.e., that kind of inference of everyday life in which reasoners draw conclusions tentatively, reserving the right to retract them in the light of further information. Such inferences are called "non-monotonic" because the set of conclusions warranted on the basis of a given knowledge base does not increase (in fact, it can shrink) with the size of the knowledge base itself. This is (...) in contrast to classical (first-order) logic, whose inferences, being deductively valid, can never be "undone" by new information. (shrink)

Logical pluralism is the view that there is more than one correct logic. Most logical pluralists think that logic is normative in the sense that you make a mistake if you accept the premisses of a valid argument but reject its conclusion. Some authors have argued that this combination is self-undermining: Suppose that L1 and L2 are correct logics that coincide except for the argument from Γ to φ, which is valid in L1 but invalid in L2. If (...) you accept all sentences in Γ, then, by normativity, you make a mistake if you reject φ. In order to avoid mistakes, you should accept φ or suspend judgment about φ. Both options are problematic for pluralism. Can pluralists avoid this worry by rejecting the normativity of logic? I argue that they cannot. All else being equal, the argument goes through even if logic is not normative. (shrink)

Bruce Waller has defended a deductive reconstruction of the kinds of analogical arguments found in ethics, law, and metaphysics. This paper demonstrates the limits of such a reconstruction and argues for an alternative. non-deductive reconstruction. It will be shown that some analogical arguments do not fit Waller's deductive schema, and that such a schema does not allow for an adequate account of the strengths and weaknesses of an analogical argument. The similarities and differences between the account defended (...) herein and the Trudy Govier's account are discussed as well. (shrink)

Bruce Waller has defended a deductive reconstruction of the kinds of analogical arguments found in ethics, law, and metaphysics. This paper demonstrates the limits of such a reconstruction and argues for an alternative. non-deductive reconstruction. It will be shown that some analogical arguments do not fit Waller's deductive schema, and that such a schema does not allow for an adequate account of the strengths and weaknesses of an analogical argument. The similarities and differences between the account defended (...) herein and the Trudy Govier's account are discussed as well. (shrink)

We are much better equipped to let the facts reveal themselves to us instead of blinding ourselves to them or stubbornly trying to force them into preconceived molds. We no longer embarrass ourselves in front of our students, for example, by insisting that “Some Xs are Y” means the same as “Some X is Y”, and lamely adding “for purposes of logic” whenever there is pushback. Logic teaching in this century can exploit the new spirit of objectivity, humility, clarity, (...) observationalism, contextualism, and pluralism. Besides the new spirit there have been quiet developments in logic and its history and philosophy that could radically improve logic teaching. One rather conspicuous example is that the process of refining logical terminology has been productive. Future logic students will no longer be burdened by obscure terminology and they will be able to read, think, talk, and write about logic in a more careful and more rewarding manner. Closely related is increased use and study of variable-enhanced natural language as in “Every proposition x that implies some proposition y that is false also implies some proposition z that is true”. Another welcome development is the culmination of the slow demise of logicism. No longer is the teacher blocked from using examples from arithmetic and algebra fearing that the students had been indoctrinated into thinking that every mathematical truth was a tautology and that every mathematical falsehood was a contradiction. A fifth welcome development is the separation of laws of logic from so-called logical truths, i.e., tautologies. Now we can teach the logical independence of the laws of excluded middle and non-contradiction without fear that students had been indoctrinated into thinking that every logical law was a tautology and that every falsehood of logic was a contradiction. This separation permits the logic teacher to apply logic in the clarification of laws of logic. This lecture expands the above points, which apply equally well in first, second, and third courses, i.e. in “critical thinking”, “deductive logic”, and “symbolic logic”. (shrink)

Varieties of natural deduction systems are introduced for Wansing’s paraconsistent non-commutative substructural logic, called a constructive sequential propositional logic (COSPL), and its fragments. Normalization, strong normalization and Church-Rosser theorems are proved for these systems. These results include some new results on full Lambek logic (FL) and its fragments, because FL is a fragment of COSPL.

Reminiscences of Peter, by P. Oppenheim.--Natural kinds, by W. V. Quine.--Inductive independence and the paradoxes of confirmation, by J. Hintikka.--Partial entailment as a basis for inductive logic, by W. C. Salmon.--Are there non-deductive logics?, by W. Sellars.--Statistical explanation vs. statistical inference, by R. C. Jeffre--Newcomb's problem and two principles of choice, by R. Nozick.--The meaning of time, by A. Grünbaum.--Lawfulness as mind-dependent, by N. Rescher.--Events and their descriptions: some considerations, by J. Kim.--The individuation of events, by D. (...) Davidson.--On properties, by H. Putnam.--A method for avoiding the Curry paradox, by F. B. Fitch.--Publications (1934-1969) by Carl G. Hempel (p. [266]-270). (shrink)

Warren Goldfarb, Deductive Logic, Hackett Publishing Company, 2003.    : 0872206602. Deductive Logic is an introductory textbook in formal logic. The book is divided into four parts covering truth-functional logic, monadic quantifi- cation, polyadic quantification and names and identity, and there are exercises for all these topics at the end of the book. In the truth-functional logic part, the reader learns to produce paraphrases of English statements and arguments in logical notation, then about the semantic (...) properties of such paraphrased statements and arguments, such as satisfiability, implication and equivalence and finally there is an axiomatic proof method and some important extras such as disjunctive normal form and expressive adequacy. Parts two and three mirror this analysis/assessment/reflection structure for monadic and polyadic quantification, though this time the proof system is a natural deduction one, and part three contains a completeness proof for that system. The fourth part of the book introduces names, the identity predicate and descriptions and examines the additional expressive power which these provide. I do not think there should be any doubt that this is an excellent book; it presents the essential topics of a first logic course with accuracy, clarity and attention to detail, and it makes material that can be confusing the first time round—say, the translation of conditionals—transparent and easy to understand. But there are a lot of good introductory logic textbooks out there, so I will say something about how it resembles and differs from some other books, and then discuss one minor irritation with this one. (shrink)

We describe a relational framework that uniformly supports formalization and automated reasoning in varied propositional modal logics. The proof system we propose is a relational variant of the classical Rasiowa-Sikorski proof system. We introduce a compact graph-based representation of formulae and proofs supporting an efficient implementation of the basic inference engine, as well as of a number of refinements. Completeness and soundness results are shown and a Prolog implementation is described.

There exist important deductive systems, such as the non-normal modal logics, that are not proper subjects of classical algebraic logic in the sense that their metatheory cannot be reduced to the equational metatheory of any particular class of algebras. Nevertheless, most of these systems are amenable to the methods of universal algebra when applied to the matrix models of the system. In the present paper we consider a wide class of deductive systems of this kind called (...) protoalgebraic logics. These include almost all (non-pathological) systems of prepositional logic that have occurred in the literature. The relationship between the metatheory of a protoalgebraic logic and its matrix models is studied. The following results are obtained for any finite matrix model U of a filter-distributive protoalgebraic logic : (I) The extension U of is finitely axiomatized (provided has only finitely many inference rules); (II) U has only finitely many extensions. (shrink)

The subject of Labelled Non-Classical Logics is the development and investigation of a framework for the modular and uniform presentation and implementation of non-classical logics, in particular modal and relevance logics. Logics are presented as labelled deduction systems, which are proved to be sound and complete with respect to the corresponding Kripke-style semantics. We investigate the proof theory of our systems, and show them to possess structural properties such as normalization and the subformula property, which we (...) exploit not only to establish advantages and limitations of our approach with respect to related ones, but also to give, by means of a substructural analysis, a new proof-theoretic method for investigating decidability and complexity of (some of) the logics we consider. All of our deduction systems have been implemented in the generic theorem prover Isabelle, thus providing a simple and natural environment for interactive proof development. Labelled Non-Classical Logics is essential reading for researchers and practitioners interested in the theory and applications of non-classical logics. (shrink)

Until not too many years ago, all logics except classical logic (and, perhaps, intuitionistic logic too) were considered to be things esoteric. Today this state of a airs seems to have completely been changed. There is a growing interest in many types of nonclassical logics: modal and temporal logics, substructural logics, paraconsistent logics, non-monotonic logics { the list is long. The diversity of systems that have been proposed and studied is so great that (...) a need is felt by many researchers to try to put some order in the present logical jungle. Thus Cl91], Ep90] and Wo88] are three recent books in which an attempt is made to develop a general theoretical framework for the study of logics. On the more pragmatic side, several systems have been developed with the goal of providing a computerized logical framework in which many di erent logical systems can be implemented in a uniform way. An example is the Edinburgh LF( HHP91]). (shrink)

The aim of this book is to present the fundamental theoretical results concerning inference rules in deductive formal systems. Primary attention is focused on: admissible or permissible inference rules the derivability of the admissible inference rules the structural completeness of logics the bases for admissible and valid inference rules. There is particular emphasis on propositional non-standard logics (primary, superintuitionistic and modal logics) but general logical consequence relations and classical first-order theories are also considered. The book (...) is basically self-contained and special attention has been made to present the material in a convenient manner for the reader. Proofs of results, many of which are not readily available elsewhere, are also included. The book is written at a level appropriate for first-year graduate students in mathematics or computer science. Although some knowledge of elementary logic and universal algebra are necessary, the first chapter includes all the results from universal algebra and logic that the reader needs. For graduate students in mathematics and computer science the book is an excellent textbook. (shrink)

Although there are a few books available that give brief surveys of a variety of nonstandard logics, there is a growing need for a critical presentation providing both a greater depth and breadth of insight into these logics. This book assembles a wider and deeper view of the many potentially applicable logics. Three appendixes provide short tutorials on classical logic and modal logics, and give a brief introduction to the existing literature on the logical (...) aspects of probability theory. These tutorials and the bibliography included in the appendixes provide useful reference material for the reader. (shrink)

This introduction to formal logic is one of the few paperbacks available that provides a broad survey of the field. In addition to a clear presentation of sentential and first order quantificational logic, there is a discussion of the philosophical significance of recent work by Church, Gödel, and Tarski. The proof technique employed throughout is the indirect argument. Since proofs of this sort can be converted into mechanical tests of validity, it is easier than most for a beginning student (...) to grasp. Furthermore, this style of argument has long been recognized as the most obvious method of showing arguments in ordinary language to be invalid. Interesting treatments of the construction of decision machines, the nature of formal systems, and the application of logic to mathematics are included in the last section. Numerous exercises are included for which some answers are provided.--R. P. M. (shrink)

This thesis is about how deduction is analytic and, at the same time, informative. In the first two chapters I am after the question of the justification of deduction. This justification is circular in the sense that to explain how deduction works we use some basic deductive rules. However, this circularity is not trivial as not every rule can be justified circularly. Moreover, deductive rules may not need suasive justification because they are not ampliative. Deduction preserves meaning, that (...) is, the meaning of non-logical vocabulary of any theory which is developed by deductive reasoning remains unchanged. It means that deduction adds no information to what we already had in our premises. This is why deduction is analytic. -/- However, there are many ways deduction can be informative. In the next three chapters, I will pick a specific kind of deductive reasoning, namely arithmetical reasoning, and will attempt to understand the nature of information we obtain by this kind of reasoning. There is a difference between simple deductive moves such as inferring `Socrates is mortal' from `All human are mortal' and `Socrates is human', and inferring that a relation is reflexive given that it is directed, symmetric and transitive. The latter is more complicated and not as easy to prove as the former. Therefore it is informative and the proof we construct to prove it puts us in an epistemic position that we were not in before having the proof. To be more specific, I show that concepts we need to confirm the conclusion are made in the process of proving the conclusion. (shrink)

A number of authors have objected to the application of non-classical logic to problems in philosophy on the basis that these non-classical logics are usually characterised by a classical metatheory. In many cases the problem amounts to more than just a discrepancy; the very phenomena responsible for non-classicality occur in the field of semantics as much as they do elsewhere. The phenomena of higher order vagueness and the revenge liar are just two such examples. The aim of this paper (...) is to show that a large class of non-classical logics are strong enough to formulate their own model theory in a corresponding non-classical set theory. Specifically I show that adequate definitions of validity can be given for the propositional calculus in such a way that the metatheory proves, in the specified logic, that every theorem of the propositional fragment of that logic is validated. It is shown that in some cases it may fail to be a classical matter whether a given sentence is valid or not. One surprising conclusion for non-classical accounts of vagueness is drawn: there can be no axiomatic, and therefore precise, system which is determinately sound and complete. (shrink)

Deductive Logic is an introductory textbook in formal logic. The book is divided into four parts covering (i) truth-functional logic, (ii) monadic quantifi- cation, (iii) polyadic quantification and (iv) names and identity, and there are exercises for all these topics at the end of the book. In the truth-functional logic part, the reader learns to produce paraphrases of English statements and arguments in logical notation (this subsection is called “analysis”), then about the semantic properties of such paraphrased statements (...) and arguments, such as satisfiability, implication and equivalence (“logical assessment”) and finally (“reflection”) there is an axiomatic proof method and some important extras such as disjunctive normal form and expressive adequacy. Parts two and three mirror this analysis/assessment/reflection structure for monadic and polyadic quantification, though this time the proof system is a natural deduction one, and part three contains a completeness proof for that system. The fourth part of the book introduces names, the identity predicate and descriptions and examines the additional expressive power which these provide. (shrink)

The thesis of this paper is that we can justify induction deductively relative to one end, and deduction inductively relative to a different end. I will begin by presenting a contemporary variant of Hume ’s argument for the thesis that we cannot justify the principle of induction. Then I will criticize the responses the resulting problem of induction has received by Carnap and Goodman, as well as praise Reichenbach ’s approach. Some of these authors compare induction to deduction. Haack compares (...) deduction to induction, and I will critically discuss her argument for the thesis that we cannot justify the principles of deduction next. In concluding I will defend the thesis that we can justify induction deductively relative to one end, and deduction inductively relative to a different end, and that we can do so in a non-circular way. Along the way I will show how we can understand deductive and inductive logic as normative theories, and I will briefly sketch an argument to the effect that there are only hypothetical, but no categorical imperatives. (shrink)

The role of classical logic as the base of formalized scientific theories seems to be unshakable. Yet legitimate doubts about its universal applicability in science have resulted in the development of alternative systems, among which constructive and modal logic are discussed in syntactic and semantic terms.

The role of classical logic as the base of formalized scientific theories seems to be unshakable. Yet legitimate doubts about its universal applicability in science have resulted in the development of alternative systems, among which constructive and modal logic are discussed in syntactic and semantic terms.

We give a proof-theoretic as well as a semantic characterization of a logic in the signature with conjunction, disjunction, negation, and the universal and existential quantifiers that we suggest has a certain fundamental status. We present a Fitch-style natural deduction system for the logic that contains only the introduction and elimination rules for the logical constants. From this starting point, if one adds the rule that Fitch called Reiteration, one obtains a proof system for intuitionistic logic in the given signature; (...) if instead of adding Reiteration, one adds the rule of Reductio ad Absurdum, one obtains a proof system for orthologic; by adding both Reiteration and Reductio, one obtains a proof system for classical logic. Arguably neither Reiteration nor Reductio is as intimately related to the meaning of the connectives as the introduction and elimination rules are, so the base logic we identify serves as a more fundamental starting point and common ground between proponents of intuitionistic logic, orthologic, and classical logic. The algebraic semantics for the logic we motivate proof-theoretically is based on bounded lattices equipped with what has been called a weak pseudocomplementation. We show that such lattice expansions are representable using a set together with a reflexive binary relation satisfying a simple first-order condition, which yields an elegant relational semantics for the logic. This builds on our previous study of representations of lattices with negations, which we extend and specialize for several types of negation in addition to weak pseudocomplementation; in an appendix, we further extend this representation to lattices with implications. Finally, we discuss adding to our logic a conditional obeying only introduction and elimination rules, interpreted as a modality using a family of accessibility relations. (shrink)

The issue of what consequences to draw from the existence of non-classical logical systems has been the subject of an interesting debate across a diversity of fields. In this paper the matter of alternative logics is considered with reference to a specific belief system and its propositions :the Azande are said to maintain beliefs about witchcraft which, when expressed propositionally, appear to be inconsistent. When the Azande have been presented with such inconsistencies, they either fail to see them as (...) such or else accept them as non-problematical. Is our knowledge of logical truths a relative and culturally determined phenomenon, or is there some (transcendent) criterion that allows us to adjudicate between alternative logical systems? The authors propose an approach for resolving disputes about the status of Azande reasoning which assumes a paraconsistent framework, thus providing a new perspective on this debate. (shrink)

Vann McGee has recently argued that Belnap’s criteria constrain the formal rules of classical natural deduction to uniquely determine the semantic values of the propositional logical connectives and quantifiers if the rules are taken to be open-ended, i.e., if they are truth-preserving within any mathematically possible extension of the original language. The main assumption of his argument is that for any class of models there is a mathematically possible language in which there is a sentence true in just (...) those models. I show that this assumption does not hold for the class of models of classical propositional logic. In particular, I show that the existence of non-normal models for negation undermines McGee’s argument. (shrink)

David Miller argues that there are no good reasons, either sufficient or insufficient. I show that most of his arguments are invalid or unsound. Several of his arguments depend upon the false claim that every deductively valid argument is circular. I accept one of Miller's arguments for the conclusion that there are no good reasons which are less-than-sufficient. I accept one of his arguments to the conclusion that there are no probative sufficient reasons. But I explain how (...) there are epistemic sufficient reasons which are relative to the game of science and how their existence is consistent with Miller's main contentions while avoiding Miller's apparently anarchic account of our knowledge. (shrink)

Although there is a prima facie strong case for a close connection between the meaning and inferential role of certain expressions, this connection seems seriously threatened by the semantic and logical paradoxes which rely on these inferential roles. Some philosophers have drawn radical conclusions from the paradoxes for the theory of meaning in general, and for which sentences in our language are true. I criticize these overreactions, and instead propose to distinguish two conceptions of inferential role. This distinction is (...) closely tied to two conceptions of deductive logic, and it is the key, I argue, for understanding first the connection between meaning and inferential role, and second what the paradoxes show more generally. (shrink)

This paper analyses the logical structure of the balancing of conflicting normative arguments, and asks whether non-monotonic logic is adequate to represent this type of legal or practical reasoning. Norm conflicts are often regarded as a field of application for non-monotonic logics. This paper argues, however, that the balancing of normative arguments consists of an act of judgement, not a logical inference, and that models of deductive as well as of defeasible reasoning do not give an adequate account (...) of its structure. Moreover, it argues that as far as the argumentation consists in logical inferences, deductive logic suffices for reconstructing the argumentation from the internal point of view of someone making normative judgements. (shrink)

A pair of deductive systems (S,S’) is Leibniz-linked when S’ is an extension of S and on every algebra there is a map sending each filter of S to a filter of S’ with the same Leibniz congruence. We study this generalization to arbitrary deductive systems of the notion of the strong version of a protoalgebraic deductive system, studied in earlier papers, and of some results recently found for particular non-protoalgebraic deductive systems. The necessary examples (...) and counterexamples found in the literature are described. (shrink)

This book stands at the intersection of two topics: the decidability and computational complexity of hybrid logics, and the deductive systems designed for them. Hybrid logics are here divided into two groups: standard hybrid logics involving nominals as expressions of a separate sort, and non-standard hybrid logics, which do not involve nominals but whose expressive power matches the expressive power of binder-free standard hybrid logics.The original results of this book are split into two parts. (...) This division reflects the division of the book itself. The first type of results concern model-theoretic and complexity properties of hybrid logics. Since hybrid logics which we call standard are quite well investigated, the efforts focused on hybrid logics referred to as non-standard in this book. Non-standard hybrid logics are understood as modal logics with global counting operators ) whose expressive power matches the expressive power of binder-free standard hybrid logics. The relevant results comprise: 1. Establishing a sound and complete axiomatization for the modal logic K with global counting operators ), which can be easily extended onto other frame classes, 2. Establishing tight complexity bounds, namely NExpTime-completeness for the modal logic with global counting operators defined over the classes of arbitrary, reflexive, symmetric, serial and transitive frames ), MT), MD), MB), MK4) with numerical subscripts coded in binary. Establishing the exponential-size model property for this logic defined over the classes of Euclidean and equivalential frames ), MS5).Results of the second type consist of designing concrete deductive systems for standard and non-standard hybrid logics. More precisely, they include: 1. Devising a prefixed and an internalized tableau calculi which are sound, complete and terminating for a rich class of binder-free standard hybrid logics. An interesting feature of indicated calculi is the nonbranching character of the rule, 2. Devising a prefixed and an internalized tableau calculi which are sound, complete and terminating for non-standard hybrid logics. The internalization technique applied to a tableau calculus for the modal logic with global counting operators is novel in the literature, 3. Devising the first hybrid algorithm involving an inequality solver for modal logics with global counting operators. Transferring the arithmetical part of reasoning to an inequality solver turned out to be sufficient in ensuring termination.The book is directed to philosophers and logicians working with modal and hybrid logics, as well as to computer scientists interested in deductive systems and decision procedures for logics. Extensive fragments of the first part of the book can also serve as an introduction to hybrid logics for wider audience interested in logic.The content of the book is situated in the areas of formal logic and theoretical computer science with some elements of the theory of computational complexity. (shrink)

George Boole published the pamphlet The Mathematical Analysis of Logic in 1847. He believed that logic should belong to a universal mathematics that would cover both quantitative and nonquantitative research. With his pamphlet, Boole signalled an important change in symbolic logic: in contrast with his predecessors, his thinking was exclusively extensional. Notwithstanding the innovations introduced he accepted all traditional Aristotelean syllogisms. Nevertheless, some criticisms have been raised concerning Boole’s view of Aristotelean logic as the solution of algebraic equations. In order (...) to circumvent such criticisms, we show here how Boole’s conclusions may be deduced from the axioms and inference rules proposed in his pamphlet, from which Aristotle’s deductions in Prior Analytics (including those that are completed through an impossibility) can be stated as theorems. We clarify his method for dealing with both universal and particular premises by means of his symbol v and demystify some criticisms concerning the way he expressed particular premises. Boole’s conclusions for some of those premises for which according to Aristotle there is no deduction are also discussed. The deductive system presented here has the potential to provide a new perspective on Boole’s approach to logic in The Mathematical Analysis of Logic. (shrink)

From the point of view of non-classical logics, Heyting's implication is the smallest implication for which the deduction theorem holds. This book studies properties of logical systems having some of the classical connectives and implication in the neighbourhood of Heyt ing's implication. I have not included anything on entailment, al though it belongs to this neighbourhood, mainly because of the appearance of the Anderson-Belnap book on entailment. In the later chapters of this book, I have included material that might (...) be of interest to the intuitionist mathematician. Originally, I intended to include more material in that spirit but I decided against it. There is no coherent body of material to include that builds naturally on the present book. There are some serious results on topological models, second order Beth and Kripke models, theories of types, etc., but it would require further research to be able to present a general theory, possibly using sheaves. That would have postponed pUblication for too long. I would like to dedicate this book to my colleagues, Professors G. Kreisel, M.O. Rabin and D. Scott. I have benefited greatly from Professor Kreisel's criticism and suggestions. Professor Rabin's fun damental results on decidability and undecidability provided the powerful tools used in obtaining the majority of the results reported in this book. Professor Scott's approach to non-classical logics and especially his analysis of the Scott consequence relation makes it possible to present Heyting's logic as a beautiful, integral part of non-classical logics. (shrink)

In this paper we present a solution of the axiomatization problem for the Fmla-Fmla versions of the Pietz and Rivieccio exactly true logic and the non-falsity logic dual to it. To prove the completeness of the corresponding binary consequence systems we introduce a specific proof-theoretic formalism, which allows us to deal simultaneously with two consequence relations within one logical system. These relations are hierarchically organized, so that one of them is treated as the basic for the resulting logic, and the (...) other is introduced as an extension of this basic relation. The proposed bi-consequences systems allow for a standard Henkin-style canonical model used in the completeness proof. The deductive equivalence of these bi-consequence systems to the corresponding binary consequence systems is proved. We also outline a family of the bi-consequence systems generated on the basis of the first-degree entailment logic up to the classic consequence. (shrink)

In this paper we present a solution of the axiomatization problem for the Fmla-Fmla versions of the Pietz and Rivieccio exactly true logic and the non-falsity logic dual to it. To prove the completeness of the corresponding binary consequence systems we introduce a specific proof-theoretic formalism, which allows us to deal simultaneously with two consequence relations within one logical system. These relations are hierarchically organized, so that one of them is treated as the basic for the resulting logic, and the (...) other is introduced as an extension of this basic relation. The proposed bi-consequences systems allow for a standard Henkin-style canonical model used in the completeness proof. The deductive equivalence of these bi-consequence systems to the corresponding binary consequence systems is proved. We also outline a family of the bi-consequence systems generated on the basis of the first-degree entailment logic up to the classic consequence. (shrink)

A truth-preservation fallacy is using the concept of truth-preservation where some other concept is needed. For example, in certain contexts saying that consequences can be deduced from premises using truth-preserving deduction rules is a fallacy if it suggests that all truth-preserving rules are consequence-preserving. The arithmetic additive-associativity rule that yields 6 = (3 + (2 + 1)) from 6 = ((3 + 2) + 1) is truth-preserving but not consequence-preserving. As noted in James Gasser’s dissertation, Leibniz has been criticized for (...) using that rule in attempting to show that arithmetic equations are consequences of definitions. -/- A system of deductions is truth-preserving if each of its deductions having true premises has a true conclusion—and consequence-preserving if, for any given set of sentences, each deduction having premises that are consequences of that set has a conclusion that is a consequence of that set. Consequence-preserving amounts to: in each of its deductions the conclusion is a consequence of the premises. The same definitions apply to deduction rules considered as systems of deductions. Every consequence-preserving system is truth-preserving. It is not as well-known that the converse fails: not every truth-preserving system is consequence-preserving. Likewise for rules: not every truth-preserving rule is consequence-preserving. There are many famous examples. In ordinary first-order Peano-Arithmetic, the induction rule yields the conclusion ‘every number x is such that: x is zero or x is a successor’—which is not a consequence of the null set—from two tautological premises, which are consequences of the null set, of course. The arithmetic induction rule is truth-preserving but not consequence-preserving. Truth-preserving rules that are not consequence-preserving are non-logical or extra-logical rules. Such rules are unacceptable to persons espousing traditional truth-and-consequence conceptions of demonstration: a demonstration shows its conclusion is true by showing that its conclusion is a consequence of premises already known to be true. The 1965 Preface in Benson Mates (1972, vii) contains the first occurrence of truth-preservation fallacies in the book. (shrink)

In 1920 Łukasiewicz published a two-page article whose title was “On Three-valued Logic”. The paper proposes a semantic characterization for the logic that has been later called Ł3 . In spite of the shortness of the paper, all the important points concerning the semantics of Ł3 are already there and can be naturally generalized to the case of a generic number n of truth-values . The conclusion of the article is quite interesting:The present author is of the opinion that (...) three-valued logic has above all theoretical importance as an endeavour to construct a system of non-aristotelian logic. Whether the new system of logic has any practical importance will be seen only when the logical phenomena, especially those in the deductive sciences, are thoroughly examined, and when the consequences of the indeterministic philosophy, which is the metaphysical substratum of the new logic, can be compared with empirical data. (shrink)

I read Stefan Collini’s What are Universities For? last week with very mixed feelings. In the past, I’ve much admired his polemical essays on the REF, “impact”, the Browne Report, etc. in the London Review of Books and elsewhere: they speak to my heart. If you don’t know those essays, you can get some of their flavour from his latest article in the Guardian yesterday. But I found the book a disappointment. Perhaps the trouble is that Collini is too decent, (...) too high-minded, has too unrealistically exalted a view about what actually happens in universities which is too coloured by attitudes appropriate to the traditional humanities. And he is optimistic to the point of fantasy if he thinks that people are so susceptible to “the romance of ideas and the power of beauty” that they will want, or can be brought to want, lots and lots of universities in order to promote the ideas (as if they would suppose that the task of “conserving, understanding, extending and handing on to subsequent generations the intellectual, scientific, and artistic heritage of mankind” was clearly ill-served when there were only forty universities in England, as opposed to a hundred and whatever). (shrink)

Probability theory, epistemically interpreted, provides an excellent, if not the best available account of inductive reasoning. This is so because there are general and definite rules for the change of subjective probabilities through information or experience; induction and belief change are one and same topic, after all. The most basic of these rules is simply to conditionalize with respect to the information received; and there are similar and more general rules. 1 Hence, a fundamental reason for the epistemological (...) success of probability theory is that there at all exists a well-behaved concept of conditional probability. Still, people have, and have reasons for, various concerns over probability theory. One of these is my starting point: Intuitively, we have the notion of plain belief; we believe propositions2 to be true (or to be false or neither). Probability theory, however, offers no formal counterpart to this notion. Believing A is not the same as having probability 1 for A, because probability 1 is incorrigible3; but plain belief is clearly corrigible. And believing A is not the same as giving A a probability larger than some 1 - c, because believing A and believing B is usually taken to be equivalent to believing A & B.4 Thus, it seems that the formal representation of plain belief has to take a non-probabilistic route. Indeed, representing plain belief seems easy enough: simply represent an epistemic state by the set of all propositions believed true in it or, since I make the common assumption that plain belief is deductively closed, by the conjunction of all propositions believed true in it. But this does not yet provide a theory of induction, i.e. an answer to the question how epistemic states so represented are changed tbrough information or experience. There is a convincing partial answer: if the new information is compatible with the old epistemic state, then the new epistemic state is simply represented by the conjunction of the new information and the old beliefs. This answer is partial because it does not cover the quite common case where the new information is incompatible with the old beliefs. It is, however, important to complete the answer and to cover this case, too; otherwise, we would not represent plain belief as conigible. The crucial problem is that there is no good completion. When epistemic states are represented simply by the conjunction of all propositions believed true in it, the answer cannot be completed; and though there is a lot of fruitful work, no other representation of epistemic states has been proposed, as far as I know, which provides a complete solution to this problem. In this paper, I want to suggest such a solution. In [4], I have more fully argued that this is the only solution, if certain plausible desiderata are to be satisfied. Here, in section 2, I will be content with formally defining and intuitively explaining my proposal. I will compare my proposal with probability theory in section 3. It will turn out that the theory I am proposing is structurally homomorphic to probability theory in important respects and that it is thus equally easily implementable, but moreover computationally simpler. Section 4 contains a very brief comparison with various kinds of logics, in particular conditional logic, with Shackle's functions of potential surprise and related theories, and with the Dempster - Shafer theory of belief functions. (shrink)

The existing literature treats of several investigations with a certain bearing on the question which is roughly indicated by the title “Imperatives and Logic.” Some of those investigations, however, are entirely outside the scope of the present work.Mally sets himself the task of developing a “Logik des Willens” constituting a parallel to the usual logic, the “Logik des Denkens". In order to emphasize its independence, the author also calls this “Logik des Willens” “Deontik”, and he conceives it as being based (...) on the “Wesensgesetze” of will in the same way as the usual logic is conceived as being based on the “Wesensgesetze” of thought. The author develops a formalistic deductive system on the basis of 5 axioms of demands, including the axiom that there is at least one fact which is unconditionally demanded, and through a lengthy series of theorems he arrives at the sentence that what is unconditionally demanded is identical with what is actually the case: “was sein soll, ist Tatsache”. Similarly, the author develops a system of axioms for “right” volition, including the axiom that right volition is non-contradictory. (shrink)

We show that there are continuum many different extensions of SCI (the basic theory of non-Fregean propositional logic) that lie below WF (the Fregean extension) and are closed under substitution. Moreover, continuum many of them are independent from WB (the Boolean extension), continuum many lie above WB and are independent from WH (the Boolean extension with only two values for the equality relation), and only countably many lie between WH and WF.

This document collects natural derivation systems for logics described in Priest, An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic [4]. It provides an alternative or supplement to the semantic tableaux of his text. Except that some chapters are collapsed, there are sections for each chapter in Priest, with an additional, final section on quantified modal logic. In each case, (i) the language is briefly described and key semantic definitions stated, (ii) the derivation system is presented with a few examples given, and (...) (iii) soundness and completeness are proved. There should be enough detail to make the parts accessible to students would work through parallel sections of Priest. (shrink)