Supraclassical Consequence Relations

2013 ◽  
pp. 326-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Labuschagne ◽  
Johannes Heidema ◽  
Katarina Britz
Keyword(s):  
Consequence Relations

Sequent Calculi for Global Modal Consequence Relations

Studia Logica ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 613-637
Author(s):  
Minghui Ma ◽  
Jinsheng Chen
Keyword(s):  
Consequence Relations ◽  
Sequent Calculi

Equivalence of consequence relations: an order-theoretic and categorical perspective

2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 780-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Galatos ◽  
Constantine Tsinakis
Keyword(s):  
Deductive System ◽  
Consequence Relations ◽  
Deductive Systems ◽  
System A ◽  
Common Character

AbstractEquivalences and translations between consequence relations abound in logic. The notion of equivalence can be denned syntactically, in terms of translations of formulas, and order-theoretically, in terms of the associated lattices of theories. W. Blok and D. Pigozzi proved in [4] that the two definitions coincide in the case of an algebraizable sentential deductive system. A refined treatment of this equivalence was provided by W. Blok and B. Jónsson in [3]. Other authors have extended this result to the cases of κ-deductive systems and of consequence relations on associative, commutative, multiple conclusion sequents. Our main result subsumes all existing results in the literature and reveals their common character. The proofs are of order-theoretic and categorical nature.

Canonical rules

2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 1171-1205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emil Jeřábek
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Proof ◽  
Finite Model ◽  
Consequence Relations ◽  
Model Property ◽  
Finite Model Property ◽  
Admissible Rules ◽  
Superintuitionistic Logics ◽  
Canonical Formulas ◽  
Global Consequence

AbstractWe develop canonical rules capable of axiomatizing all systems of multiple-conclusion rules over K4 or IPC, by extension of the method of canonical formulas by Zakharyaschev [37]. We use the framework to give an alternative proof of the known analysis of admissible rules in basic transitive logics, which additionally yields the following dichotomy: any canonical rule is either admissible in the logic, or it is equivalent to an assumption-free rule. Other applications of canonical rules include a generalization of the Blok–Esakia theorem and the theory of modal companions to systems of multiple-conclusion rules or (unitary structural global) consequence relations, and a characterization of splittings in the lattices of consequence relations over monomodal or superintuitionistic logics with the finite model property.

scholarly journals Some consequence relations on propositional formulas

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-15
Author(s):  
Momcilo Borovcanin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Consequence Relations ◽  
Binary Relations ◽  
Preference Relations ◽  
Short Overview ◽  
Logical Equivalence ◽  
Logical Entailment ◽  
Automated Decision Making ◽  
Product Control

Consequence relations on propositional formulas are binary relations on propositional formulas that represent certain types of entailment - formal or semi-formal derivation of conclusion from a certain set of premises. Some of well known examples are classical implication (standard logical entailment), preference relations (i.e. relations that satisfy Reflexivity, Left logical equivalence, Right weakening, And, Or and Cautious monotonicity) rational relations (i.e. preference relations that also satisfy rational monotonicity), consequence relations (prime examples are qualitative possibilities and necessities) etc. More than two decades various consequence relations are used in automated decision making, product control, risk assessment and so on. The aim of this paper is to give a short overview of the most prominent examples of consequence relations.

scholarly journals Power Matrices and Dunn--Belnap Semantics: Reflections on a Remark of Graham Priest

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lloyd Humberstone
Keyword(s):  
Equational Logic ◽  
Consequence Relations ◽  
Consequence Relation ◽  
Power Matrix ◽  
Matrix Construction ◽  
The Given ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Power Algebras ◽  
Graham Priest ◽  
Natural Way

The plurivalent logics considered in Graham Priest's recent paper of that name can be thought of as logics determined by matrices (in the `logical matrix' sense) whose underlying algebras are power algebras (a.k.a. complex algebras, or `globals'), where the power algebra of a given algebra has as elements \textit{subsets} of the universe of the given algebra, and the power matrix of a given matrix has has the power algebra of the latter's algebra as its underlying algebra, with its designated elements being selected in a natural way on the basis of those of the given matrix. The present discussion stresses the continuity of Priest's work on the question of which matrices determine consequence relations (for propositional logics) which remain unaffected on passage to the consequence relation determined by the power matrix of the given matrix with the corresponding (long-settled) question in equational logic as to which identities holding in an algebra continue to hold in its power algebra. Both questions are sensitive to a decision as to whether or not to include the empty set as an element of the power algebra, and our main focus will be on the contrast, when it is included, between the power matrix semantics (derived from the two-element Boolean matrix) and the four-valued Dunn--Belnap semantics for first-degree entailment a la Anderson and Belnap) in terms of sets of classical values (subsets of {T, F}, that is), in which the empty set figures in a somewhat different way, as Priest had remarked his 1984 study, `Hyper-contradictions', in which what we are calling the power matrix construction first appeared.

What Would a Phenomenology of Logic Look Like?

Mind ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 129 (516) ◽  
pp. 1009-1031
Author(s):  
James Kinkaid
Keyword(s):  
Logical Consequence ◽  
Philosophy Of Logic ◽  
Contemporary Philosophy ◽  
Consequence Relations ◽  
Consequence Relation ◽  
If Logic ◽  
Pure Logic ◽  
Logical Investigations ◽  
Normative Status ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract The phenomenological movement begins in the Prolegomena to Husserl’s Logical Investigations as a philosophy of logic. Despite this, remarkably little attention has been paid to Husserl’s arguments in the Prolegomena in the contemporary philosophy of logic. In particular, the literature spawned by Gilbert Harman’s work on the normative status of logic is almost silent on Husserl’s contribution to this topic. I begin by raising a worry for Husserl’s conception of ‘pure logic’ similar to Harman’s challenge to explain the connection between logic and reasoning. If logic is the study of the forms of all possible theories, it will include the study of many logical consequence relations; by what criteria, then, should we select one (or a distinguished few) consequence relation(s) as correct? I consider how Husserl might respond to this worry by looking to his late account of the ‘genealogy of logic’ in connection with Gurwitsch’s claim that ‘[i]t is to prepredicative perceptual experience … that one must return for a radical clarification and for the definitive justification of logic’. Drawing also on Sartre and Heidegger, I consider how prepredicative experience might constrain or guide our selection of a logical consequence relation and our understanding of connectives like implication and negation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document