Combining classical logic, paraconsistency and relevance

We present a logic with has both a simple semantics and a cut-free Gentzen-type system on one hand, and which combines relevance logics, da Costa's paraconsistent logics, and classical logic on the other. We further show that the logic has many other nice properties, and that its language is ideal from the semantic point of view.     

A procedural criterion for final derivability in inconsistency-adaptive logics

This paper concerns a (prospective) goal directed proof procedure for the propositional fragment of the inconsistency-adaptive logic ACLuN1. At the propositional level, the procedure forms an algorithm for final derivability. If extended to the predicative level, it provides a criterion for final derivability. This is essential in view of the absence of a positive test. The procedure may be generalized to all flat adaptive logics.     

Anti-intuitionism and paraconsistency

This paper aims to help to elucidate some questions on the duality between the intuitionistic and the paraconsistent paradigms of thought, proposing some new classes of anti-intuitionistic propositional logics and investigating their relationships with the original intuitionistic logics. It is shown here that anti-intuitionistic logics are paraconsistent, and in particular we develop a first anti-intuitionistic hierarchy starting with Johansson's dual calculus and ending up with Gödel's three-valued dual calculus, showing that no calculus of this hierarchy allows the introduction of an internal implication symbol. Comparing these anti-intuitionistic logics with well-known paraconsistent calculi, we prove that they do not coincide with any of these. On the other hand, by dualizing the hierarchy of the paracomplete (or maximal weakly intuitionistic) many-valued logics (Iⁿ)_nω we show that the anti-intuitionistic hierarchy (I^n*)_nω obtained from (Iⁿ)_nω does coincide with the hierarchy of the many-valued paraconsistent logics (Pⁿ)_nω. Fundamental properties of our method are investigated, and we also discuss some questions on the duality between the intuitionistic and the paraconsistent paradigms, including the problem of self-duality. We argue that questions of duality quite naturally require refutative systems (which we call elenctic systems) as well as the usual demonstrative systems (which we call deictic systems), and multiple-conclusion logics are used as an appropriate environment to deal with them.     

On negation: Pure local rules

This is an initial systematic study of the properties of negation from the point of view of abstract deductive systems. A unifying framework of multiple-conclusion consequence relations is adopted so as to allow us to explore symmetry in exposing and matching a great number of positive contextual sub-classical rules involving this logical constant—among others, well-known forms of proof by cases, consequentia mirabilis and reductio ad absurdum. Finer definitions of paraconsistency and the dual paracompleteness can thus be formulated, allowing for pseudo-scotus and ex contradictione to be differentiated and for a comprehensive version of the Principle of Non-Triviality to be presented. A final proposal is made to the effect that—pure positive rules involving negation being often fallible—a characterization of what most negations in the literature have in common should rather involve, in fact, a reduced set of negative rules.     

Aristotle's Thesis between paraconsistency and modalization

If the arrow → stands for classical relevant implication, Aristotle's Thesis ¬(A→¬A) is inconsistent with the Law of Simplification (AB)→B accepted by relevantists, but yields an inconsistent non-trivial extension of the system of entailment E. Such paraconsistent extensions of relevant logics have been studied by R. Routley, C. Mortensen and R. Brady. After examining the semantics associated to such systems, it is stressed that there are nonclassical treatments of relevance which do not support Simplification. The paper aims at showing that Aristotle's Thesis may receive a sense if the arrow is defined as strict implication endowed with the proviso that the clauses of the conditional have the same modal status, i.e. the same position in the Aristotelian square. It is so grasped, in different form, the basic idea of relevant logic that the clauses of a true conditional should have something in common. It is proved that thanks to such definition of the arrow Aristotle's Thesis subjoined to the minimal normal system K yields a system equivalent to the deontic system KD.     

A logical expression of reasoning

A non-monotonic logic, the Logic of Plausible Reasoning (LPR), capable of coping with the demands of what we call complex reasoning, is introduced. It is argued that creative complex reasoning is the way of reasoning required in many instances of scientific thought, professional practice and common life decision taking. For managing the simultaneous consideration of multiple scenarios inherent in these activities, two new modalities, weak and strong plausibility, are introduced as part of the Logic of Plausible Deduction (LPD), a deductive logic specially designed to serve as the monotonic support for LPR. Axiomatics and semantics for LPD, together with a completeness proof, are provided. Once LPD has been given, LPR may be defined via a concept of extension over LPD. Although the construction of LPR extensions is first presented in standard style, for the sake of comparison with existing non-monotonic formalisms, alternative more elegant and intuitive ways for constructing non-monotonic LPR extensions are also given and proofs of their equivalence are presented.     

Updating a progic

This paper presents a progic, or probabilistic logic, in the sense of Haenni et al. [8]. The progic presented here is based on Bayesianism, as the progic discussed by Williamson [15]. However, the underlying generalised Bayesianism differs from the objective Bayesianism used by Williamson, in the calibration norm, and the liberalisation and interpretation of the reference probability in the norm of equivocation. As a consequence, the updating dynamics of both Bayesianisms differ essentially. Whereas objective Bayesianism is based on a probabilistic re-evaluation, orthodox Bayesianism is based on a probabilistic revision. I formulate a generalised and iterable orthodox Bayesian revision dynamics. This allows to define an updating procedure for the generalised Bayesian progic. The paper compares the generalised Bayesian progic and Williamson's objective Bayesian progic in strength, update dynamics and with respect to language (in)sensitivity.