COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY RESPONSES to the twentieth-century revolution in logic have usually started from the assumption that there is in fact a body of theory for which the name 'extensional logic' is appropriate. Debate has centered not on that assumption but rather on such questions as whether that logic includes every important feature that belongs in a proper logic and whether it excludes all features that should be excluded from that ordered realm. Revisionist logicians have usually supposed that extensional logic, for all (...) its power and versatility, does not express the tight bond between meanings that is of the very essence of the logical connection; and they have labored to provide an alternative intensional logic that does indeed express it. (shrink)

. On a structuralist account of logic, the logical operators, as well as modal operators are defined by the specific ways that they interact with respect to implication. As a consequence, the same logical operator (conjunction, negation etc.) can appear to be very different with a variation in the implication relation of a structure. We illustrate this idea by showing that certain operators that are usually regarded as extra-logical concepts (Tarskian algebraic operations on theories, mereological (...) sum, products and negates of individuals, intuitionistic operations on mathematical problems, epistemic operations on certain belief states) are simply the logical operators that are deployed in different implication structures. That makes certain logical notions more omnipresent than one would think. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to clarify the truth-functional interpretation of the logical connective of the material implication. The importance of such clarification lies in the fact that it allows avoiding the supposed paradoxes introduced by C. I. Lewis (1918). I argue that an adequate understanding of the history and purposes of logic is enough to dissolve them away. The defense is based on an exposition of propositional compositionalism. To compare, I also present Stalnaker’s (1968) alternative that (...) seeks to explain the implicit concept of conditionality of conditionals assertions. In order to reinforce my aim I expound the twelve different meanings of ‘implication’ stated by Corcoran (1993) in order to hold that a proper understanding of these meanings allows us to avoid ambiguities and confusions. Finally, I expect to show that despite the possible alternatives, compositionalism is still the best explanation for the truth-functionality account of logical connectives. (shrink)

This is a survey paper of approaches to the concept of logical implication. Roughly stated the main motivation of these approaches is to provide a necessary and sufficient condition for a set of propositions to logically imply a single proposition. In regard to their affinities these approaches are grouped into two: the transformational conception and the informational conception. Some approaches in each conception are philosophical and some are mathematical in character, their common assumption being that they reflect a (...) previous intuition – in some cases – already at work in classical mathematics. The first part of the paper is devoted to approaches within the transformational conception of logical implication emphasizing the contributions of Bolzano, Russell, Tarski, Quine and current model – theory. The second part of the paper discusses approaches within the informational conception of logical implication. Carnap and Bar Hillel’s extrinsic approach and Corcoran’s intrinsic approach developed in his information-theoretic logic are respectively compared and some of their philosophical underpinnings are brought to light. The paper concludes with some final remarks concerning the ontic question of the nature of logical implication and the epistemic question of the human access to this relation in both conceptions of logical implication. The article also attempts to connect the views of these representative thinkers with the current philosophical debate on the nature of logical consequence and the role of set-theoretic model theory in philosophy of logic. (shrink)

Semantic relativism is the view that the truth-value of some types of statements can vary depending on factors besides possible worlds and times, without any change in their propositional content. It has grown increasingly popular as a semantic theory of several types of statements, including statements that attribute knowledge of a proposition to a subject (knowledge attributions). The ways of knowing claim is the view that perception logically implies knowledge. In my “Semantic Relativism and Ways of Knowing” (2019) I argued (...) that a relativist semantics for knowledge attributions is incompatible with the ways of knowing claim. I suggested that this incompatibility depends on some basic features of the logic of relativist semantics, and therefore can be shown to generalise beyond the discussion of knowledge attributions to semantic relativism more broadly. Here I make this generalisation. I demonstrate that for any proposition p expressed by a statement that does not have a relativist semantics, and for any proposition q expressed by a statement that does have a relativist semantics, p fails to logically imply q. I explain why this happens, discuss some of its philosophical consequences, and consider a way to modify relativist semantics to avoid it. I conclude that semantic relativism raises interesting philosophical questions that have gone largely unnoticed in discussions of this view until now. (shrink)

Una interpretación particularmente influyente de la teoría de la implicación lógica de Bertrand Russell y Clarence I. Lewis es la propuesta por Quine en su artículo “Reply to Professor Marcus”. Allí Quine sostiene que la lógica modal de Lewis nació en pecado: el pecado de confundir uso con mención, ya que cuando se afirma que una oración implica lógicamente a otra, estas oraciones no están siendo usadas sino mencionadas. Según la interpretación de Quine, Clarence I. Lewis persistió en el error (...) de Russell, que consistió en confundir la implicación material con la implicación lógica, y confundió la implicación estricta con la implicación lógica. Estos ‘pecados’ de Russell y Lewis pueden entenderse mejor si se tiene en cuenta que tanto Lewis como Russell sostienen que los axiomas y los teoremas en un cálculo lógico se usan de dos maneras: (a) como premisas a partir de las cuales se obtienen nuevos teoremas, y (b) como reglas de inferencia mediante las cuales se obtienen nuevos teoremas. En efecto, estos autores suscriben la teoría del doble uso de los principios lógicos que parece originarse en la obra de Peano y que ha sido casi completamente ignorada en la literatura acerca de la historia de la lógica. -/- A particularly influential interpretation of Bertrand Russell’s and Clarence I. Lewis’s theory of logical implication is the one proposed by Quine in his article "Reply to Professor Marcus". In that article Quine argues that Lewis's modal logic was born in sin: the sin of confusing use with mention, since when it is stated that a sentence logically implies another sentence, these sentences are not being used but mentioned. According to Quine's interpretation, Clarence I. Lewis persisted in Russell's error, which consisted in confusing material implication with logical implication, and confused strict implication with logical implication. These 'sins' of Russell and Lewis can be better understood if we take into account that both logicians argue that the axioms and theorems in a logical calculus are used in two ways: (a) as premises from which new theorems are obtained, and (b) as rules of inference by which new theorems are obtained. In fact, these authors subscribe to the theory of the double use of logical principles that seems to originate in Peano's work and that has been almost completely ignored in the literature about the history of logic. (shrink)

The book discusses philosophical and logical problems of quantum physics and its interpretations. Emphasis lies on the compatibility of quantum physics with classical logic and various ontological stances.

I discuss paradoxes of implication in the setting of a proof-conditional theory of meaning for logical constants. I argue that a proper logic of implication should be not only relevant, but also constructive and nonmonotonic. This leads me to select as a plausible candidate LL, a fragment of linear logic that differs from R in that it rejects both contraction and distribution.

The Komori–Kashima problem, that asks whether the implicational intermediate logics axiomatizable by formulas minimal in classical logic are only intuitionistic logic and classical logic, has stood for over a decade. In this paper, we give a counter-example to this problem. Additionally, we also give some open problems derived from this result.

We introduce a logic BI in which a multiplicative (or linear) and an additive (or intuitionistic) implication live side-by-side. The propositional version of BI arises from an analysis of the proof-theoretic relationship between conjunction and implication; it can be viewed as a merging of intuitionistic logic and multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic. The naturality of BI can be seen categorically: models of propositional BI's proofs are given by bicartesian doubly closed categories, i.e., categories which freely combine the semantics of (...) propositional intuitionistic logic and propositional multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic. The predicate version of BI includes, in addition to standard additive quantifiers, multiplicative (or intensional) quantifiers ∀ new and ∃ new which arise from observing restrictions on structural rules on the level of terms as well as propositions. We discuss computational interpretations, based on sharing, at both the propositional and predicate levels. (shrink)

This monograph presents a general theory of weakly implicative logics, a family covering a vast number of non-classical logics studied in the literature, concentrating mainly on the abstract study of the relationship between logics and their algebraic semantics. It can also serve as an introduction to algebraic logic, both propositional and first-order, with special attention paid to the role of implication, lattice and residuated connectives, and generalized disjunctions. Based on their recent work, the authors develop a powerful uniform framework (...) for the study of non-classical logics. In a self-contained and didactic style, starting from very elementary notions, they build a general theory with a substantial number of abstract results. The theory is then applied to obtain numerous results for prominent families of logics and their algebraic counterparts, in particular for superintuitionistic, modal, substructural, fuzzy, and relevant logics. The book may be of interest to a wide audience, especially students and scholars in the fields of mathematics, philosophy, computer science, or related areas, looking for an introduction to a general theory of non-classical logics and their algebraic semantics. (shrink)

This paper combines two classes of generalized logics, one of which is the class of weakly implicative logics introduced by Cintula and the other of which is the class of gaggle logics introduced by Dunn. For this purpose we introduce implicational tonoid logics. More precisely, we first define implicational tonoid logics in general and examine their relation to weakly implicative logics. We then provide algebraic semantics for implicational tonoid logics. Finally, we consider relational semantics, called Routley–Meyer–style semantics, for finitary those (...) logics. (shrink)

This paper is devoted to the investigation of term-definable connexive implications in substructural logics with exchange and, on the semantical perspective, in sub-varieties of commutative residuated lattices (FL ${}_{\scriptsize\mbox{e}}$ -algebras). In particular, we inquire into sufficient and necessary conditions under which generalizations of the connexive implication-like operation defined in [6] for Heyting algebras still satisfy connexive theses. It will turn out that, in most cases, connexive principles are equivalent to the equational Glivenko property with respect to Boolean algebras. Furthermore, (...) we provide some philosophical upshots like, e.g., a discussion on the relevance of the above operation in relationship with G. Polya’s logic of plausible inference, and some characterization results on weak and strong connexivity. (shrink)

We collect together some misgivings about the logic R of relevant inplication, and then give support to a weak entailment logic $DJ^{d}$ . The misgivings centre on some recent negative results concerning R, the conceptual vacuousness of relevant implication, and the treatment of classical logic. We then rectify this situation by introducing an entailment logic based on meaning containment, rather than meaning connection, which has a better relationship with classical logic. Soundness and completeness results are proved for $DJ^{d}$ with (...) respect to a content semantics, which embraces the concept of meaning containment. (shrink)

I take 'informal logic' to be the (descriptive and normative) study of 'real arguments'-arguments which are or have been used with the aim of convincing others of a point of view. I argue that the informal logic tradition thus conceived (i) lends strong support to something like Quine's view that our beliefs really support one another like the filaments in a spider's web--and thus that the traditional view that implication is an asymmetric relation is false; (ii) suggests that the (...) classic division of arguments into deductive and inductive has distorted our thinking about the evaluation of real arguments; and (iii) implies that naturalised epistemology is on the right track. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Paradoxes Stimulate Theory Development An Analogy with Perceptual Illusions Do Logical Paradoxes Exist? Imagination Overflows Logical Possibility Paradoxes Evoke Logical Analogies An Implication about the Nature of Paradox.

We introduce several restricted versions of the structural rules in the implicational fragment of Gentzen's sequent calculus LJ. For example, we permit the applications of a structural rule only if its principal formula is an implication. We investigate cut-eliminability and theorem-equivalence among various combinations of them. The results include new cut-elimination theorems for the implicational fragments of the following logics: relevant logic E, strict implication S4, and their neighbors (e.g., E-W and S4-W); BCI-logic, BCK-logic, relevant logic R, and (...) the intuitionistic logic. (shrink)

We show that provability in the implicational fragment of relevance logic is complete for doubly exponential time, using reductions to and from coverability in branching vector addition systems.

First and foremost, this paper concerns the combination of classical propositional logic with a relevant implication. The proposed combination is simple and transparent from a proof theoretic point of view and at the same time extremely useful for relating formal logic to natural language sentences. A specific system will be presented and studied, also from a semantic point of view. The last sections of the paper contain more general considerations on combining classical propositional logic with a relevant logic that (...) has all classical theorems as theorems. (shrink)

We provide a logical matrix semantics and a Gentzen-style sequent calculus for the first-degree entailments valid in W. T. Parry’s logic of Analytic Implication. We achieve the former by introducing a logical matrix closely related to that inducing paracomplete weak Kleene logic, and the latter by presenting a calculus where the initial sequents and the left and right rules for negation are subject to linguistic constraints.

Implicational tonoid logics and their relational semantics have been introduced by Yang and Dunn. This paper extends this investigation to implicational partial Galois logics. For this, we first define some implicational partial gaggle logics as special kinds of implicational tonoid logics called “implicational partial Galois logics.” Next, we provide Routley–Meyer-style relational semantics for finitary those logics.

This is the continuation of the paper :417–446, 2010). We continue the abstract study of non-classical logics based on the kind of generalized implication connectives they possess and we focus on semilinear logics, i.e. those that are complete with respect to the class of models where the implication defines a linear order. We obtain general characterizations of semilinearity in terms of the intersection-prime extension property, the syntactical semilinearity metarule and the class of finitely subdirectly irreducible models. Moreover, we (...) consider extensions of the language with lattice connectives and generalized disjunctions, study their interplay with implication and obtain axiomatizations and further descriptions of semilinear logics in terms of disjunctions and the proof by cases property. (shrink)

This paper presents two classes of propositional logics (understood as a consequence relation). First we generalize the well-known class of implicative logics of Rasiowa and introduce the class of weakly implicative logics. This class is broad enough to contain many “usual” logics, yet easily manageable with nice logical properties. Then we introduce its subclass–the class of weakly implicative fuzzy logics. It contains the majority of logics studied in the literature under the name fuzzy logic. We present many general theorems (...) for both classes, demonstrating their usefulness and importance. (shrink)

Let us assume that you are entrusted by UNESCO with an important task. You are asked to devise a universal logical language, a Begriffsschrift in Frege's sense, which is to serve the purposes of science, business and everyday life. What requirements should such a “conceptual notation” satisfy? There are undoubtedly many relevant desiderata, but here I am focusing on one unmistakable one. In order to be a viable lingua universalis, your language must in any case be capable of representing (...) any possible configuration of dependence and independence between different variables. For if such a configuration is possible in principle, there is no guarantee that it might not one day show up among the natural, human or social phenomena we have to study.But how are dependencies and independencies between variables expressed in our familiar logical notation? Every logician worth his or her truth-table knows the answer. Dependencies between two variables are expressed by dependencies between the quantifiers to which they are bound. For instance, inthe variable y depends on x, while inz depends on x but not on y, while u depends on both x and y.But how is the dependence of a quantifier on another one expressed in familiar logical languages? Obviously by occurring in its scope, indicated by the pair of parentheses following it. But the nesting of scopes is a transitive and antisymmetrical relation which allows branching only in one direction. Hence other kinds of structures of dependence and independence between variables are not representable in the received logical notation. Such previously inexpressible structures form the subject matter of what has been referred to as independence-friendly logic. (shrink)

This paper presents an abstract study of completeness properties of non-classical logics with respect to matricial semantics. Given a class of reduced matrix models we define three completeness properties of increasing strength and characterize them in several useful ways. Some of these characterizations hold in absolute generality and others are for logics with generalized implication or disjunction connectives, as considered in the previous papers. Finally, we consider completeness with respect to matrices with a linear dense order and characterize it (...) in terms of an extension property and a syntactical metarule. This is the final part of the investigation started and developed in the papers :417–446, 2010; Arch Math Logic 53:353–372, 2016). (shrink)

In abstract algebraic logic, the general study of propositional non-classical logics has been traditionally based on the abstraction of the Lindenbaum-Tarski process. In this process one considers the Leibniz relation of indiscernible formulae. Such approach has resulted in a classification of logics partly based on generalizations of equivalence connectives: the Leibniz hierarchy. This paper performs an analogous abstract study of non-classical logics based on the kind of generalized implication connectives they possess. It yields a new classification of logics expanding (...) Leibniz hierarchy: the hierarchy of implicational logics. In this framework the notion of implicational semilinear logic can be naturally introduced as a property of the implication, namely a logic L is an implicational semilinear logic iff it has an implication such that L is complete w.r.t. the matrices where the implication induces a linear order, a property which is typically satisfied by well-known systems of fuzzy logic. The hierarchy of implicational logics is then restricted to the semilinear case obtaining a classification of implicational semilinear logics that encompasses almost all the known examples of fuzzy logics and suggests new directions for research in the field. (shrink)

We describe a method for obtaining classical logic from intuitionistic logic which does not depend on any proof system, and show that by applying it to the most important implicational relevance logics we get relevance logics with nice semantical and proof-theoretical properties. Semantically all these logics are sound and strongly complete relative to classes of structures in which all elements except one are designated. Proof-theoretically they correspond to cut-free hypersequential Gentzen-type calculi. Another major property of all these logic is that (...) the classical implication can faithfully be translated into them. (shrink)

A non-classical subsystem of orthomodular quantum logic is proposed. This system employs two basic operations: the Sasaki hook as implication and the _and-then_ operation as conjunction. These operations successfully satisfy modus ponens and the deduction theorem. In other words, they form an adjunction in terms of category theory. Two types of semantics are presented for this logic: one algebraic and one physical. The algebraic semantics deals with orthomodular lattices, as in traditional quantum logic. The physical semantics is given as (...) a procedure for deriving a final segment of a series of yes-no experiments. (shrink)

We collect together some misgivings about the logic R of relevant inplication, and then give support to a weak entailment logic $DJ^{d}$ . The misgivings centre on some recent negative results concerning R, the conceptual vacuousness of relevant implication, and the treatment of classical logic. We then rectify this situation by introducing an entailment logic based on meaning containment, rather than meaning connection, which has a better relationship with classical logic. Soundness and completeness results are proved for $DJ^{d}$ with (...) respect to a content semantics, which embraces the concept of meaning containment. (shrink)