Establishing Connections between Aristotle's Natural Deduction and First-Order Logic

This article studies the mathematical properties of two systems that model Aristotle's original syllogistic and the relationship obtaining between them. These systems are Corcoran's natural deduction syllogistic and ?ukasiewicz's axiomatization of the syllogistic. We show that by translating the former into a first-order theory, which we call T _RD, we can establish a precise relationship between the two systems. We prove within the framework of first-order logic a number of logical properties about T _RD that bear upon the same properties of the natural deduction counterpart – that is, Corcoran's system. Moreover, the first-order logic framework that we work with allows us to understand how complicated the semantics of the syllogistic is in providing us with examples of bizarre, unexpected interpretations of the syllogistic rules. Finally, we provide a first attempt at finding the structure of that semantics, reducing the search to the characterization of the class of models of T _RD.     

Varieties of Reflection in Kant's Logic

For Kant, ‘reflection’ (Überlegung, Reflexion) is a technical term with a range of senses. I focus here on the senses of reflection that come to light in Kant's account of logic, and then bring the results to bear on the distinction between ‘logical’ and ‘transcendental’ reflection that surfaces in the Amphiboly chapter of the Critique of Pure Reason. Although recent commentary has followed similar cues, I suggest that it labours under a blind spot, as it neglects Kant's distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ general logic. The foundational text of existing interpretations is a passage in Logik Jäsche that appears to attribute to Kant the view that reflection is a mental operation involved in the generation of concepts from non-conceptual materials. I argue against the received view by attending to Kant's division between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ general logic, identifying senses of reflection proper to each, and showing that none accords well with the received view. Finally, to take account of Kant's notion of transcendental reflection I show that we need to be attentive to the concerns of applied logic and how they inform the domain-relative transcendental logic that Kant presents in the first Critique.     

概率逻辑与模糊逻辑在精细化学习诊断中的对比研究

精细化学习诊断有助于客观准确探究学生学习现状,为实施有针对性的补救教学提供理论和数据支持。本文对比研究概率逻辑与模糊逻辑在精细化学习诊断中的表现。首先,从“概念”视角介绍和对比两种逻辑。其次,介绍两个分别基于上述两逻辑的代表性模型：HO-PINC和Fuzzy-DINA。然后,对比两模型在五个实证数据上表现。最后,通过模拟研究进一步对比两模型的心理计量学性能。DIC等模型-数据拟合指标和RMSE等参数返真性指标的结果表明两模型对同一批数据有较一致的分析结果。建议实践者忽略模型选择对数据分析的影响,从概念或思辨视角入手选择使用概率逻辑或模糊逻辑来定义属性。     

Bi-Simulating in Bi-Intuitionistic Logic

Bi-intuitionistic logic is the result of adding the dual of intuitionistic implication to intuitionistic logic. In this note, we characterize the expressive power of this logic by showing that the first order formulas equivalent to translations of bi-intuitionistic propositional formulas are exactly those preserved under bi-intuitionistic directed bisimulations. The proof technique is originally due to Lindström and, in contrast to the most common proofs of this kind of result, it does not use the machinery of neither saturated models nor elementary chains.     

Agreement Theorems in Dynamic-Epistemic Logic

This paper introduces Agreement Theorems to dynamic-epistemic logic. We show first that common belief of posteriors is sufficient for agreement in epistemic-plausibility models, under common and well-founded priors. We do not restrict ourselves to the finite case, showing that in countable structures the results hold if and only if the underlying plausibility ordering is well-founded. We then show that neither well-foundedness nor common priors are expressible in the language commonly used to describe and reason about epistemic-plausibility models. The static agreement result is, however, finitely derivable in an extended modal logic. We provide the full derivation. We finally consider dynamic agreement results. We show they have a counterpart in epistemic-plausibility models, and provide a new form of agreements via public announcements.     

Infinity and a Critical View of Logic

Abstract

The paper explores the view that in mathematics, in particular where the infinite is involved, the application of classical logic to statements involving the infinite cannot be taken for granted. L. E. J. Brouwer’s well-known rejection of classical logic is sketched, and the views of David Hilbert and especially Hermann Weyl, both of whom used classical logic in their mathematical practice, are explored. We inquire whether arguments for a critical view can be found that are independent of constructivist premises and consider the entanglement of logic and mathematics. This offers a convincing case regarding second-order logic, but for first-order logic, it is not so clear. Still, we ask whether we understand the application of logic to the higher infinite better than we understand the higher infinite itself.     

Actuality in Propositional Modal Logic

We show that the actuality operator A is redundant in any propositional modal logic characterized by a class of Kripke models (respectively, neighborhood models). Specifically, we prove that for every formula ${\phi}$ in the propositional modal language with A, there is a formula ${\psi}$ not containing A such that ${\phi}$ and ${\psi}$ are materially equivalent at the actual world in every Kripke model (respectively, neighborhood model). Inspection of the proofs leads to corresponding proof-theoretic results concerning the eliminability of the actuality operator in the actuality extension of any normal propositional modal logic and of any “classical” modal logic. As an application, we provide an alternative proof of a result of Williamson’s to the effect that the compound operator A□ behaves, in any normal logic between T and S5, like the simple necessity operator □ in S5.     

Logic and Social Cognition

This article takes off from Johan van Benthem’s ruminations on the interface between logic and cognitive science in his position paper “Logic and reasoning: Do the facts matter?”. When trying to answer Van Benthem’s question whether logic can be fruitfully combined with psychological experiments, this article focuses on a specific domain of reasoning, namely higher-order social cognition, including attributions such as “Bob knows that Alice knows that he wrote a novel under pseudonym”. For intelligent interaction, it is important that the participants recursively model the mental states of other agents. Otherwise, an international negotiation may fail, even when it has potential for a win-win solution, and in a time-critical rescue mission, a software agent may depend on a teammate’s action that never materializes. First a survey is presented of past and current research on higher-order social cognition, from the various viewpoints of logic, artificial intelligence, and psychology. Do people actually reason about each other’s knowledge in the way proscribed by epistemic logic? And if not, how can logic and cognitive science productively work together to construct more realistic models of human reasoning about other minds? The paper ends with a delineation of possible avenues for future research, aiming to provide a better understanding of higher-order social reasoning. The methodology is based on a combination of experimental research, logic, computational cognitive models, and agent-based evolutionary models.     

A Cut-Free Sequent System for the Smallest Interpretability Logic

The idea of interpretability logics arose in Visser [Vis90]. He introduced the logics as extensions of the provability logic GLwith a binary modality . The arithmetic realization of A B in a theory T will be that T plus the realization of B is interpretable in T plus the realization of A (T + A interprets T + B). More precisely, there exists a function f (the relative interpretation) on the formulas of the language of T such that T + B C implies T + A f(C).The interpretability logics were considered in several papers. An arithmetic completeness of the interpretability logic ILM, obtained by adding Montagna's axiom to the smallest interpretability logic IL, was proved in Berarducci [Ber90] and Shavrukov [Sha88] (see also Hájek and Montagna [HM90] and Hájek and Montagna [HM92]). [Vis90] proved that the interpretability logic ILP, an extension of IL, is also complete for another arithmetic interpretation. The completeness with respect to Kripke semantics due to Veltman was, for IL, ILMand ILP, proved in de Jongh and Veltman [JV90]. The fixed point theorem of GLcan be extended to ILand hence ILMand ILP(cf. de Jongh and Visser [JV91]). The unary pendant "T interprets T + A" is much less expressive and was studied in de Rijke [Rij92]. For an overview of interpretability logic, see Visser [Vis97], and Japaridze and de Jongh [JJ98].In this paper, we give a cut-free sequent system for IL. To begin with, we give a cut-free system for the sublogic IL4of IL, whose -free fragment is the modal logic K4. A cut-elimination theorem for ILis proved using the system for IK4and a property of Löb's axiom.     

Paraconsistent Logic

In some logics, anything whatsoever follows from a contradiction; call these logics explosive. Paraconsistent logics are logics that are not explosive. Paraconsistent logics have a long and fruitful history, and no doubt a long and fruitful future. To give some sense of the situation, I’ll spend Section 1 exploring exactly what it takes for a logic to be paraconsistent. It will emerge that there is considerable open texture to the idea. In Section 2, I’ll give some examples of techniques for developing paraconsistent logics. In Section 3, I’ll discuss what seem to me to be some promising applications of certain paraconsistent logics. In fact, however, I don’t think there’s all that much to the concept ‘paraconsistent’ itself; the collection of paraconsistent logics is far too heterogenous to be very productively dealt with under a single label. Perhaps that will emerge as we go.     

A Primer on Rational Consequence Relations,Popper Functions,and Their Ranked Structures

Rational consequence relations and Popper functions provide logics for reasoning under uncertainty, the former purely qualitative, the latter probabilistic. But few researchers seem to be aware of the close connection between these two logics. I’ll show that Popper functions are probabilistic versions of rational consequence relations. I’ll not assume that the reader is familiar with either logic. I present them, and explicate the relationship between them, from the ground up. I’ll also present alternative axiomatizations for each logic, showing them to depend on weaker axioms than usually recognized.     

Abstraction in Fitch's Basic Logic

Fitch's basic logic is an untyped illative combinatory logic with unrestricted principles of abstraction effecting a type collapse between properties (or concepts) and individual elements of an abstract syntax. Fitch does not work axiomatically and the abstraction operation is not a primitive feature of the inductive clauses defining the logic. Fitch's proof that basic logic has unlimited abstraction is not clear and his proof contains a number of errors that have so far gone undetected. This paper corrects these errors and presents a reasonably intuitive proof that Fitch's system K supports an implicit abstraction operation. Some general remarks on the philosophical significance of basic logic, especially with respect to neo-logicism, are offered, and the paper concludes that basic logic models a highly intensional form of logicism.     

Leibniz and the Square: A Deontic Logic for the Vir Bonus

Seventeenth century philosopher Gottfried Leibniz's contributions to metaphysics, mathematics, and logic are well known. Lesser known is his ‘invention’ of deontic logic, and that his invention derives from the alethic logic of the Aristotelian square of opposition. In this paper, I show how Leibniz developed this ‘logic of duties’, which designates actions as ‘possible, necessary, impossible, and omissible’ for a ‘vir bonus’ (good person). I show that for Leibniz, deontic logic can determine whether a given action, e.g. as permitted, is therefore obligatory or prohibited (impossible). Secondly, since the deontic modes are derived from what is possible, necessary, etc., for a good person to do, and that ‘right and obligation’ are the ‘moral qualities’ of a good person, we can see how Leibniz derives deontic logic from these moral qualities. Finally, I show how Leibniz grounds a central deontic concept, namely obligation, in the human capacity for freedom.     

On Moderate Pluralism About Truth and Logic

According to moderate truth pluralism, truth is both One and Many. There is a single truth property that applies across all truth-apt domains of discourse, but instances of this property are grounded in different ways. Propositions concerning medium-sized dry goods might be true in virtue of corresponding with reality while propositions pertaining to the law might be true in virtue of cohering with the body of law. Moderate truth pluralists must answer two questions concerning logic: (Q1) Which logic governs inferences concerning each truth-apt domain considered separately? (Q2) Which logic governs inferences that involve several truth-apt domains? This paper has three objectives. The first objective is to present and explain the moderate pluralist’s answers to (Q1) and (Q2). The second objective is to argue that there is a tension between these answers. The answer to (Q1) involves a commitment to a form of logical pluralism. However, reflection on the moderate truth pluralist’s answer to (Q2) shows that they are committed to taking logic to be topic neutrality. This, in turn, forces a commitment to logical monism. It would seem that the moderate truth pluralist cannot have it both ways. The third objective is constructive in nature. I offer an account of what moderate truth pluralists should say about logic and how they might resolve the tension in their view. I suggest that, just like moderate truth pluralists distinguish truth proper and “quasi-truth,” they should endorse a distinction between logic proper and “quasi-logic.” Quasi-truth is truth-like in the sense that instances of quasi-truth ground instances of truth. Quasi-logic is logic-like in the sense that it concerns arguments that are necessarily truth-preserving but are not generally so in a topic neutral way. I suggest that moderate truth pluralists should be monists about truth proper and logic proper but pluralists about quasi-truth and quasi-logic. This allows them to say that logic proper is topic neutral while still accommodating the idea that, for different domains, different arguments may be necessarily truth-preserving.     

Complexity Results for Modal Dependence Logic

Modal dependence logic was introduced recently by Väänänen. It enhances the basic modal language by an operator = (). For propositional variables p ₁, . . . , p _n , = (p ₁, . . . , p _n-1, p _n ) intuitively states that the value of p _n is determined by those of p ₁, . . . , p _n-1. Sevenster (J. Logic and Computation, 2009) showed that satisfiability for modal dependence logic is complete for nondeterministic exponential time. In this paper we consider fragments of modal dependence logic obtained by restricting the set of allowed propositional connectives. We show that satisfiability for poor man’s dependence logic, the language consisting of formulas built from literals and dependence atoms using ${\wedge, \square, \lozenge}$ (i. e., disallowing disjunction), remains NEXPTIME-complete. If we only allow monotone formulas (without negation, but with disjunction), the complexity drops to PSPACE-completeness. We also extend Väänänen’s language by allowing classical disjunction besides dependence disjunction and show that the satisfiability problem remains NEXPTIME-complete. If we then disallow both negation and dependence disjunction, satisfiability is complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. Additionally we consider the restriction of modal dependence logic where the length of each single dependence atom is bounded by a number that is fixed for the whole logic. We show that the satisfiability problem for this bounded arity dependence logic is PSPACE-complete and that the complexity drops to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy if we then disallow disjunction. In this way we completely classify the computational complexity of the satisfiability problem for all restrictions of propositional and dependence operators considered by Väänänen and Sevenster.     

First-Order Classical Modal Logic

The paper focuses on extending to the first order case the semantical program for modalities first introduced by Dana Scott and Richard Montague. We focus on the study of neighborhood frames with constant domains and we offer in the first part of the paper a series of new completeness results for salient classical systems of first order modal logic. Among other results we show that it is possible to prove strong completeness results for normal systems without the Barcan Formula (like FOL + K)in terms of neighborhood frames with constant domains. The first order models we present permit the study of many epistemic modalities recently proposed in computer science as well as the development of adequate models for monadic operators of high probability. Models of this type are either difficult of impossible to build in terms of relational Kripkean semantics [40].We conclude by introducing general first order neighborhood frames with constant domains and we offer a general completeness result for the entire family of classical first order modal systems in terms of them, circumventing some well-known problems of propositional and first order neighborhood semantics (mainly the fact that many classical modal logics are incomplete with respect to an unmodified version of either neighborhood or relational frames). We argue that the semantical program that thus arises offers the first complete semantic unification of the family of classical first order modal logics.     

On an Intuitionistic Modal Logic

In this paper we consider an intuitionistic variant of the modal logic S4 (which we call IS4). The novelty of this paper is that we place particular importance on the natural deduction formulation of IS4— our formulation has several important metatheoretic properties. In addition, we study models of IS4— not in the framework of Kirpke semantics, but in the more general framework of category theory. This allows not only a more abstract definition of a whole class of models but also a means of modelling proofs as well as provability.     

Gentzen-Style Sequent Calculus for Semi-intuitionistic Logic

The variety \({\mathcal{SH}}\) of semi-Heyting algebras was introduced by H. P. Sankappanavar (in: Proceedings of the 9th “Dr. Antonio A. R. Monteiro” Congress, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, 2008) [13] as an abstraction of the variety of Heyting algebras. Semi-Heyting algebras are the algebraic models for a logic HsH, known as semi-intuitionistic logic, which is equivalent to the one defined by a Hilbert style calculus in Cornejo (Studia Logica 98(1–2):9–25, 2011) [6]. In this article we introduce a Gentzen style sequent calculus GsH for the semi-intuitionistic logic whose associated logic GsH is the same as HsH. The advantage of this presentation of the logic is that we can prove a cut-elimination theorem for GsH that allows us to prove the decidability of the logic. As a direct consequence, we also obtain the decidability of the equational theory of semi-Heyting algebras.