Jean-Yves Beziau

In a first section, we discuss Quine’s claim according to which identity is a logical notion. We point out that Quine mixes up various types of identities: trivial (or diagonal) identity, Leibniz identity, etc.; and this leads him to commit several mistakes. In a second section, we review Quine’s criticisms to various philosophers (Wittgenstein, Whitehead, Leibniz, etc.), who ac-cording to him made confusion between names and objects in defining identity. We show that in fact only Korzybski can be accused of such confusion. In a third section, we analyze the relation between identity and entity. We notice that for Quine a river is the result of the identification of river stages, but that he admits it as an entity by opposition to squareness, which according to him is a result of an identification process of higher abtraction.

We present the logic K/2 which is a logic with classical implication and only the left part of classical negation.We show that it is possible to define a classical negation into K/2 and that the classical proposition logic K can be translated into this apparently weaker logic.We use concepts from model-theory in order to characterized rigorously this translation and to understand this paradox. Finally we point out that K/2 appears, following Haack's distinction, both as a deviation and an extension of K.

This is a volume containing papers honoring Patrick Suppes (1922-2014). All contributors have worked directly with Suppes or/and with his ideas. The book also contains one of the last papers by Suppes (co-authored by two of his collaborators). The work of Suppes touches many different areas, ranging from meteorology to physics, through logic, mathematics, psychology, neuroscience, education, painting, but he was first of all and above all a philosopher, always questioning, but not in vain. There are not many philosophers who can be proud of having written influential math textbooks, contributed decisively to the philosophical foundations of science, helped to develop research in real labs, promoted new forms o education (computer-assisted learning and the EGPY – Education Program for Gifted Youth). Since the range of interest of Suppes was very broad, so is the variety of topics dealt with in this volume. The work of a researcher is certainly not limited to his own writings, but also has to be appreciated through the work of the people he has been working with and influenced. From this point of view the work of Suppes is very impressive, and the present book contributes to show that. This is a follow up of a special issue of the journal Synthese, New Directions in the Foundations of Science, edited by Béziau and Krause, after a meeting they organized with Suppes in Florianópolis (Brazil) in 2002 for his 80th birthday. Jean-Yves Béziau worked with Suppes at Stanford University for two years (2000 and 2001) and has been continuously working in the Suppes tradition of logic, methodology and philosophy of science, which emphasizes structures and models. Décio Krause has used Suppes’ approach to the axiomatization of scientific theories in many fields. With J.C.M. Magalhães, he presented a ``Suppes predicate” for genetics and natural selection and with S. French he developed a Suppes predicate for quantum field theories via Fock spaces.

A collection of papers from Paul Hertz to Dov Gabbay - through Tarski, Gödel, Kripke - giving a general perspective about logical systems. These papers discuss questions such as the relativity and nature of logic, present tools such as consequence operators and combinations of logics, prove theorems such as translations between logics, investigate the domain of validity and application of fundamental results such as compactness and completeness. Each of these papers is presented by a specialist explaining its context, import and influence.

The present book discusses all aspects of paraconsistent logic, including the latest findings, and its various systems. It includes papers by leading international researchers, which address the subject in many different ways: development of abstract paraconsistent systems and new theorems about them; studies of the connections between these systems and other non-classical logics, such as non-monotonic, many-valued, relevant, paracomplete and fuzzy logics; philosophical interpretations of these constructions; and applications to other sciences, in particular quantum physics and mathematics. Reasoning with contradictions is the challenge of paraconsistent logic. The book will be of interest to graduate students and researchers working in mathematical logic, computer science, philosophical logic, linguistics and physics.

This paper is an attempt to clear some philosophical questions about the nature of logic by setting up a mathematical framework. The notion of congruence in logic is defined. A logical structure in which there is no non-trivial congruence relation, like some paraconsistent logics, is called simple. The relations between simplicity, the replacement theorem and algebraization of logic are studied (including MacLane-Curry’s theorem and a discussion about Curry’s algebras). We also examine how these concepts are related to such notions as semantics, truth-functionality and bivalence. We argue that a logic, which is simple, can deserve the name logic and that the opposite view is connected with a reductionist perspective (reduction of logic to algebra)

In this paper several systems of modal logic based on four-valued matrices are presented. We start with pure modal logics, i.e. modal logics with modal operators as the only operators, using the Polish framework of structural consequence relation. We show that with a four-valued matrix we can define modal operators which have the same behavior as in pure S5 (S5 with only modal operators). We then present modal logics with conjunction and disjunction based on four-valued matrices. We show that if we use partial order instead of linear order, we are avoiding Lukasiewicz's paradox. We then introduce classical negation and we show than defining implication in the usual way using negation and disjunction Kripke law is valid using either linear or partial order. On the other hand we show that the difference between linear and partial order appears at the level of the excluded middle and the replacement theorem. © 2011 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

After recalling the distinction between logic as reasoning and logic as theory of reasoning, we first examine the question of relativity of logic arguing that the theory of reasoning as any other science is relative. In a second part we discuss the emergence of universal logic as a general theory of logical systems, making comparison with universal algebra and the project of mathesis universalis. In a third part we critically present three lines of research connected to universal logic: logical pluralism, non-classical logics and cognitive science.

The hexagon of opposition is an improvement of the square of opposition due to Robert Blanché. After a short presentation of the square and its various interpretations, we discuss two important problems related with the square: the problem of the I-corner and the problem of the O-corner. The meaning of the notion described by the I-corner does not correspond to the name used for it. In the case of the O-corner, the problem is not a wrong-name problem but a no-name problem and it is not clear what is the intuitive notion corresponding to it. We explain then that the triangle of contrariety proposed by different people such as Vasiliev and Jespersen solves these problems, but that we don’t need to reject the square. It can be reconstructed from this triangle of contrariety, by considering a dual triangle of subcontrariety. This is the main idea of Blanché’s hexagon. We then give different examples of hexagons to show how this framework can be useful to conceptual analysis in many different fields such as economy, music, semiotics, identity theory, philosophy, metalogic and the metatheory of the hexagon itself. We finish by discussing the abstract structure of the hexagon and by showing how we can swing from sense to non-sense thinking with the hexagon.