Formal systems of dialogue rules

Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a dialogue, and of infinite dialogues, is treated in section 1.4. Other options, e.g., as to the number of attacks allowed with respect to each statement, are listed in section 1.5. Section 1.6 explains the concept of a chain of arguments.From section 2 onward four types of dialectic systems are picked out for closer study: D, E, Di and Ei. After a preliminary section on dialogue sequents and winning strategies, the equivalence of derivability in intuitionistic logic and the existence of a winning strategy (for the Proponent) on the strength of Ei is shown by simple inductive proofs.Section 3 contains a — relatively quick — proof of the equivalence of the four systems. It follows that each of them yields intuitionistic logic.     

The Pleasures of Anticipation: Enriching Intuitionistic Logic

We explore a relation we call anticipation between formulas, where A anticipates B (according to some logic) just in case B is a consequence (according to that logic, presumed to support some distinguished implicational connective ) of the formula AB. We are especially interested in the case in which the logic is intuitionistic (propositional) logic and are much concerned with an extension of that logic with a new connective, written as a, governed by rules which guarantee that for any formula B, aB is the (logically) strongest formula anticipating B. The investigation of this new logic, which we call ILa, will confront us on several occasions with some of the finer points in the theory of rules and with issues in the philosophy of logic arising from the proposed explication of the existence of a connective (with prescribed logical behaviour) in terms of the conservative extension of a favoured logic by the addition of such a connective. Other points of interest include the provision of a Kripke semantics with respect to which ILa is demonstrably sound, deployed to establish certain unprovability results as well as to forge connections with C. Rauszer's logic of dual intuitionistic negation and dual intuitionistic implication, and the isolation of two relations (between formulas), head-implication and head-linkage, which, though trivial in the setting of classical logic, are of considerable significance in the intuitionistic context.     

Quantum logical calculi and lattice structures

In a preceding paper [1] it was shown that quantum logic, given by the tableaux-calculus T _eff, is complete and consistent with respect to the dialogic foundation of logics. Since in formal dialogs the special property of the value-definiteness of propositions is not postulated, the calculus T _eff represents a calculus of effective (intuitionistic) quantum logic.Beginning with the tableaux-calculus the equivalence of T _eff to calculi which use more familiar figures such as sequents and implications can be investigated. In this paper we present a sequents-calculus of Gentzen-type and a propositional calculus of Brouwer-type which are shown to be equivalent to T _eff. The effective propositional calculus provides an interpretation for a lattice structure, called quasi-implicative lattice. If, in addition, the value-definiteness of quantum mechanical propositions is postulated, a propositional calculus is obtained which provides an interpretation for a quasi-modular orthocomplemented lattice which, as is well-known, has as a model the lattice of subspaces of a Hilbert space.     

Intuitionistic Autoepistemic Logic

In this paper we address the problem of combining a logic with nonmonotonic modal logic. In particular we study the intuitionistic case. We start from a formal analysis of the notion of intuitionistic consistency via the sequent calculus. The epistemic operator M is interpreted as the consistency operator of intuitionistic logic by introducing intuitionistic stable sets. On the basis of a bimodal structure we also provide a semantics for intuitionistic stable sets.     

Temporal and atemporal truth in intuitionistic mathematics

In section 1 we argue that the adoption of a tenseless notion of truth entails a realistic view of propositions and provability. This view, in turn, opens the way to the intelligibility of theclassical meaning of the logical constants, and consequently is incompatible with the antirealism of orthodox intuitionism. In section 2 we show how what we call the potential intuitionistic meaning of the logical constants can be defined, on the one hand, by means of the notion of atemporal provability and, on the other, by means of the operator K of epistemic logic. Intuitionistic logic, as reconstructed within this perspective, turns out to be a part of epistemic logic, so that it loses its traditional foundational role, antithetic to that of classical logic. In section 3 we uphold the view that certain consequences of the adoption of atemporal notion of truth, despite their apparent oddity, are quite acceptable from an antirealist point of view.     

Gentzen-type formulation of the prepositional logic LQ

We give a Gentzen-type formulation GQ for the intermediate logic LQ and prove the cut-elimination theorem on it, where LQ is the propositional logic obtained from the intuitionistic propositional logic LI by adding the axioms of the form AV A.     

Models for stronger normal intuitionistic modal logics

This paper, a sequel to Models for normal intuitionistic modal logics by M. Boi and the author, which dealt with intuitionistic analogues of the modal system K, deals similarly with intuitionistic analogues of systems stronger than K, and, in particular, analogues of S4 and S5. For these prepositional logics Kripke-style models with two accessibility relations, one intuitionistic and the other modal, are given, and soundness and completeness are proved with respect to these models. It is shown how the holding of formulae characteristic for particular logics is equivalent to conditions for the relations of the models. Modalities in these logics are also investigated.This paper presents results of an investigation of intuitionistic modal logic conducted in collaboration with Dr Milan Boi.     

Archetypal Forms of Inference

A form (or pattern) of inference, let us say, explicitlysubsumes just such particular inferences as are instances of the form, and implicitly subsumes thoseinferences with a premiss and conclusion logically equivalent to the premiss and conclusion of an instanceof the form in question. (For simplicity we restrict attention to one-premiss inferences.) A form ofinference is archetypal if it implicitly subsumes every correct inference. A precise definition (Section 1)of these concepts relativizes them to logics, since different logics classify different inferences ascorrect, as well as ruling differently on the matter of logical equivalence which entered into the definitionof implicit subsumption. When relativized to classical propositional logic, we find (Section 2) thatall but a handful of `degenerate' inference forms turn out to be archetypal, whereas matters are verydifferent in this respect for the case of intuitionistic propositional logic (Sections 3 and 4), and an interestingstructure emerges in this case (the poset of equivalence classes of inference forms, with respect tothe equivalence relation of implicitly subsuming the same inferences). Thus a more accurate, if excessivelylong-winded title would be 'Archetypal and Non-Archetypal Forms of Inference in Classical andIntuitionistic Propositional Logic'. Some left-overs are postponed for a final discussion (Section 5).The overall intention is to introduce a new subject matter rather than to have the last word on thequestions it raises; indeed several significant questions are left as open problems.     

Undecidability and intuitionistic incompleteness

Let S be a deductive system such that S-derivability (s) is arithmetic and sound with respect to structures of class K. From simple conditions on K and s, it follows constructively that the K-completeness of s implies MP(S), a form of Markov's Principle. If s is undecidable then MP(S) is independent of first-order Heyting arithmetic. Also, if s is undecidable and the S proof relation is decidable, then MP(S) is independent of second-order Heyting arithmetic, HAS. Lastly, when s is many-one complete, MP(S) implies the usual Markov's Principle MP.An immediate corollary is that the Tarski, Beth and Kripke weak completeness theorems for the negative fragment of intuitionistic predicate logic are unobtainable in HAS. Second, each of these: weak completeness for classical predicate logic, weak completeness for the negative fragment of intuitionistic predicate logic and strong completeness for sentential logic implics MP. Beth and Kripke completeness for intuitionistic predicate or sentential logic also entail MP.These results give extensions of the theorem of Gödel and Kreisel (in [4]) that completeness for pure intuitionistic predicate logic requires MP. The assumptions of Gödel and Kreisel's original proof included the Axiom of Dependent Choice and Herbrand's Theorem, no use of which is explicit in the present article.     

Sowjetische Theoretisch-Philosophische Perspektiven zur Kybernetik in den Humanwissenschaften

In Section I, different characterizations of the theoretical status, systematic importance and possible applications of cybernetics in the human sciences are sketched, according to view points currently developing in Soviet and Eastern science. Significant differences from the Western scientific approaches are pointed out. The connection of this field with work on heuristics and systems theory is briefly dealt with. Section II gives a critical appraisal of the ideas of B. V. Birjukov on the humanization of logic. The question of the possibility of a special logic of creativity according to this and similar methods in cybernetics is outlined, followed by a short critical analysis. Section III gives a short general introduction to some problems of the comparison of formal with dialectical logic, criticizes the work of J. Erpenbeck and H. Hörz on lawlike sentences and proposes a new scheme for dialectical hypothesis formation. A Critical comparison with some recent developments in Soviet philosophy forms the conclusion.     

Decidability of Quantified Propositional Intuitionistic Logic and S4 on Trees of Height and Arity ≤ω

Quantified propositional intuitionistic logic is obtained from propositional intuitionistic logic by adding quantifiers p, p, where the propositional variables range over upward-closed subsets of the set of worlds in a Kripke structure. If the permitted accessibility relations are arbitrary partial orders, the resulting logic is known to be recursively isomorphic to full second-order logic (Kremer, 1997). It is shown that if the Kripke structures are restricted to trees of at height and width at most , the resulting logics are decidable. This provides a partial answer to a question by Kremer. The result also transfers to modal S4 and some Gödel–Dummett logics with quantifiers over propositions.     

The logical study of science

The relation between logic and philosophy of science, often taken for granted, is in fact problematic. Although current fashionable criticisms of the usefulness of logic are usually mistaken, there are indeed difficulties which should be taken seriously — having to do, amongst other things, with different scientific mentalities in the two disciplines (section 1). Nevertheless, logic is, or should be, a vital part of the theory of science. To make this clear, the bulk of this paper is devoted to the key notion of a scientific theory in a logical perspective. First, various formal explications of this notion are reviewed (section 2), then their further logical theory is discussed (section 3). In the absence of grand inspiring programs like those of Klein in mathematics or Hilbert in metamathematics, this preparatory ground-work is the best one can do here. The paper ends on a philosophical note, discussing applicability and merits of the formal approach to the study of science (section 4).I would like to thank David Pearce and Veikko Rantala for their helpful comments.     

The Classification of Propositional Calculi

We discuss Smirnovs problem of finding a common background for classifying implicational logics. We formulate and solve the problem of extending, in an appropriate way, an implicational fragment H of the intuitionistic propositional logic to an implicational fragment TV of the classical propositional logic. As a result we obtain logical constructions having the form of Boolean lattices whose elements are implicational logics. In this way, whole classes of new logics can be obtained. We also consider the transition from implicational logics to full logics. On the base of the lattices constructed, we formulate the main classification principles for propositional logics.     

Knowledge of proofs

If proofs are nothing more than truth makers, then there is no force in the standard argument against classical logic (there is no guarantee that there is either a proof forA or a proof fornot A). The standard intuitionistic conception of a mathematical proof is stronger: there are epistemic constraints on proofs. But the idea that proofs must be recognizable as such by us, with our actual capacities, is incompatible with the standard intuitionistic explanations of the meanings of the logical constants. Proofs are to be recognizable in principle, not necessarily in practice, as shown in section 1. Section 2 considers unknowable propositions of the kind involved in Fitch's paradox:p and it will never be known thatp. It is argued that the intuitionist faces a dilemma: give up strongly entrenched common sense intuitions about such unknowable propositions, or give up verificationism. The third section considers one attempt to save intuitionism while partly giving up verificationism: keep the idea that a proposition is true iff there is a proof (verification) of it, and reject the idea that proofs must be recognizable in principle. It is argued that this move will have the effect that some standard reasons against classical semantics will be effective also against intuitionism. This is the case with Dummett's meaning theoretical argument. At the same time the basic reason for regarding proofs as more than mere truth makers is lost.I am much indebted for comments to Lars Bergström, Per Martin-Löf, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Fredrik Stjernberg, Dag Westerståhl and Tim Williamson. I owe even more to the many seminars about truth and meaning, led by Dag Prawitz, at the philosophy department of Stockholm University. These were especially intense in the mideighties, when I was a graduate student.     

Is There A Logic Of Confirmation Transfer?

This article begins by exploring a lost topic in the philosophy of science:the properties of the relations evidence confirming h confirmsh' and, more generally, evidence confirming each ofh₁, h₂, ..., h_m confirms at least one of h₁, h₂,ldots;, h_n'.The Bayesian understanding of confirmation as positive evidential relevanceis employed throughout. The resulting formal system is, to say the least, oddlybehaved. Some aspects of this odd behaviour the system has in common withsome of the non-classical logics developed in the twentieth century. Oneaspect – its ``parasitism' on classical logic – it does not, and it is this featurethat makes the system an interesting focus for discussion of questions in thephilosophy of logic. We gain some purchase on an answer to a recently prominentquestion, namely, what is a logical system? More exactly, we ask whether satisfaction of formal constraints is sufficient for a relation to be considered a (logical) consequence relation. The question whether confirmation transfer yields a logical system is answered in the negative, despite confirmation transfer having the standard properties of a consequence relation, on the grounds that validity of sequents in the system is not determined by the meanings of the connectives that occur in formulas. Developing the system in a different direction, we find it bears on the project of ``proof-theoretic semantics': conferring meaning on connectives by means of introduction (and possibly elimination) rules is not an autonomous activity, rather it presupposes a prior, non-formal,notion of consequence. Some historical ramifications are alsoaddressed briefly.     

Quantified Hintikka-style epistemic logic

This paper contains a formal treatment of the system of quantified epistemic logic sketched in Appendix II of Carlson (1983). Section 1 defines the syntax and recapitulates the model set rules and principles of the Appendix system. Section 2 defines a possible worlds semantics for this system, and shows that the Appendix system is complete with respect to this semantics. Section 3 extends the system by an explicit truth operatorT it is true that and considers quantification over nonexistent individuals. Section 4 formalizes the idea of variable identity criteria typical of Hintikkian epistemic logic.     

Dual Intuitionistic Logic and a Variety of Negations: The Logic of Scientific Research

We consider a logic which is semantically dual (in some precise sense of the term) to intuitionistic. This logic can be labeled as “falsification logic”: it embodies the Popperian methodology of scientific discovery. Whereas intuitionistic logic deals with constructive truth and non-constructive falsity, and Nelson's logic takes both truth and falsity as constructive notions, in the falsification logic truth is essentially non-constructive as opposed to falsity that is conceived constructively. We also briefly clarify the relationships of our falsification logic to some other logical systems.     

The Distance Function in Commutative ℓ-semigroups and the Equivalence in Łukasiewicz Logic

The equivalence connective in ukasiewicz logic has its algebraic counterpart which is the distance function d(x,y) =|x–y| of a positive cone of a commutative -group. We make some observations on logically motivated algebraic structures involving the distance function.     

Dialogue representation

We consider question-answer dialogues between participants who may disagree with each other. The main problems are: (a) How different speech-acts affect the information in the dialogue; and (b) How to represent what was said in a dialogue, so that we can summarize it even when it involves disagreements (i.e., inconsistencies).We use a fully-typed many-sorted language L with a possible-worlds semantics. L contains nominals representing short answers. The speech-acts are uniformly represented in a dialogue language DL by focus structures, consisting of a mood operator, a topic component and a focus component. Each stage of the dialogue is associated with a set of information functions (g-functions), which are partial functions taking a topic component (representing a question raised) to a set of propositions determined by the corresponding focus component (to the set of answers given to it).Asserting is answering a question and, hence, it causes a new g-function to be defined. Asking is an attempt to cause the hearer to define a new g-function satisfying certain conditions. A question asked requests a true and complete answer. A reaction answers a question if it satisfies some of the conditions of the question. Indirect questions are viewed as indirect answers.A dialogue representation consists of: commitment sets, each representing the commitments expressed by one participant; sets of questions under discussion associated with each stage of the dialogue, and the common ground, containing the g-functions and representing consistently what was said in the dialogue.Concepts of informativeness are naturally defined within the theory. Whether an utterance is informative depends on which question it answers and how the question was answered previously. These concepts yield that uttering mathematical and logical truths is as informative as uttering a contingency.     

Disjunctive Quantum Logic in Dynamic Perspective

In Coecke (2002) we proposed the intuitionistic or disjunctive representation of quantum logic, i.e., a representation of the property lattice of physical systems as a complete Heyting algebra of logical propositions on these properties, where this complete Heyting algebra goes equipped with an additional operation, the operational resolution, which identifies the properties within the logic of propositions. This representation has an important application towards dynamic quantum logic, namely in describing the temporal indeterministic propagation of actual properties of physical systems. This paper can as such by conceived as an addendum to Quantum Logic in Intuitionistic Perspective that discusses spin-off and thus provides an additional motivation. We derive a quantaloidal semantics for dynamic disjunctive quantum logic and illustrate it for the particular case of a perfect (quantum) measurement.