In the last two decades modal logic has undergone an explosive growth, to thepointthatacompletebibliographyofthisbranchoflogic,supposingthat someone were capable to compile it, would?ll itself a ponderous volume. What is impressive in the growth of modal logic has not been so much the quick accumulation of results but the richness of its thematic dev- opments. In the 1960s, when Kripke semantics gave new credibility to the logic of modalities? which was already known and appreciated in the Ancient and Medieval times? no one could (...) have foreseen that in a short time modal logic would become a lively source of ideas and methods for analytical philosophers,historians of philosophy,linguists, epistemologists and computer scientists. The aim which oriented the composition of this book was not to write a new manual of modal logic buttoo?ertoeveryreader,evenwithnospeci?cbackground in logic, a conceptually linear path in the labyrinth of the current panorama of modal logic. The notion which in our opinion looked suitable to work as a compass in this enterprise was the notion of multimodality, or, more speci?cally, the basic idea of grounding systems on languages admitting more than one primitive modal operator. (shrink)

The prepositional calculiC n , 1 n introduced by N.C.A. da Costa constitute special kinds of paraconsistent logics. A question which remained open for some time concerned whether it was possible to obtain a Lindenbaum''s algebra forC n . C. Mortensen settled the problem, proving that no equivalence relation forC n . determines a non-trivial quotient algebra.The concept of da Costa algebra, which reflects most of the logical properties ofC n , as well as the concept of paraconsistent closure system, (...) are introduced in this paper. (shrink)

Several types of polarized partition relations are considered. In particular we deal with partitions defined on cartesian products of more than two factors. MSC: 03E05.

This book grew out of my confusion. If logic is objective how can there be so many logics? Is there one right logic, or many right ones? Is there some underlying unity that connects them? What is the significance of the mathematical theorems about logic which I've learned if they have no connection to our everyday reasoning? The answers I propose revolve around the perception that what one pays attention to in reasoning determines which logic is appropriate. The act of (...) abstracting from our reasoning in our usual language is the stepping stone from reasoned argument to logic. We cannot take this step alone, for we reason together: logic is reasoning which has some objective value. For you to understand my answers, or perhaps better, conjectures, I have retraced my steps: from the concrete to the abstract, from examples, to general theory, to further confirming examples, to reflections on the significance of the work. (shrink)