Gemma Robles

As is known, a logic S is paraconsistent if the rule ECQ (E contradictione quodlibet) is not a rule of S. Not less well known is the fact that Lewis’ modal logics are not paraconsistent. Actually, Lewis vindicates the validity of ECQ in a famous proof currently known as the “Lewis’ proof” or “Lewis’ argument.” This proof essentially leans on the Disjunctive Syllogism as a rule of inference. The aim of this paper is to define a series of paraconsistent logics included in S4 where the Disjunctive Syllogism is valid only as a rule of proof.

A simple, bivalent semantics is defined for Łukasiewicz’s 4-valued modal logic Łm4. It is shown that according to this semantics, the essential presupposition underlying Łm4 is the following: A is a theorem iff A is true conforming to both the reductionist and possibilist theses defined as follows: rt: the value of modal formulas is equivalent to the value of their respective argument iff A is true, etc.); pt: everything is possible. This presupposition highlights and explains all oddities arising in Łm4

The concept of constructive negation we refer to in this paper is (minimally) intuitionistic in character (see [1]). The idea is to understand the negation of a proposition A as equivalent to A implying a falsity constant of some sort. Then, negation is introduced either by means of this falsity constant or, as in this paper, by means of a propositional connective defined with the constant. But, unlike intuitionisitc logic, the type of negation we develop here is, of course, devoid of paradoxes of relevance.

In a standard sense, consistency and paraconsistency are understood as the absence of any contradiction and as the absence of the ECQ (‘E contradictione quodlibet’) rule, respectively. The concepts of weak consistency (in two different senses) as well as that of F -consistency have been defined by the authors. The aim of this paper is (a) to define alternative (to the standard one) concepts of paraconsistency in respect of the aforementioned notions of weak consistency and F -consistency; (b) to define the concept of strong paraconsistency; (c) to build up a series of strongly paraconsistent logics; (d) to define the basic constructive logic adequate to a rather weak sense of consistency. All logics treated in this paper are strongly paraconsistent. All of them are sound and complete in respect a modification of Routley and Meyer’s ternary relational semantics for relevant logics (no logic in this paper is relevant).

As is well known, the variable-sharing property (vsp) is, according to Anderson and Belnap, a necessary property of any relevant logic. In this paper, we shall consider two versions of the vsp, what we label the "weak vsp" (wvsp) and the "strong vsp" (svsp). In addition, the "no loose pieces property," a property related to the wvsp and the svsp, will be defined. Each one of these properties shall generally be characterized by means of a class of logical matrices. In this way, any logic verified by an actual matrix in one of these classes has the property the class generally represents. Particular matrices (and so, logics) in each class are provided

The logic BKc6 is the basic constructive logic in the ternary relational semantics adequate to consistency understood as absolute consistency, i.e., non-triviality. Negation is introduced in BKc6 with a negation connective. The aim of this paper is to define the logic BKc6F. In this logic negation is introduced via a propositional falsity constant. We prove that BKc6 and BKc6F are definitionally equivalent. Then, we show how to extend BKc6F within the spectrum of logics delimited by contractionless intuitionistic logic. All logics defined in the paper are paraconsistent logics

The aim of this paper is to introduce an alternative to Łukasiewicz’s 4-valued modal logic Ł. As it is known, Ł is afflicted by “Łukasiewicz type paradoxes”. The logic we define, PŁ4, is a strong paraconsistent and paracomplete 4-valued modal logic free from this type of paradoxes. PŁ4 is determined by the degree of truth-preserving consequence relation defined on the ordered set of values of a modification of the matrix MŁ characteristic for the logic Ł. On the other hand, PŁ4 is a rich logic in which a number of connectives can be defined. It also has a simple bivalent semantics of the Belnap–Dunn type.

Łukasiewicz 3-valued logic Ł3 is often understood as the set of all valid formulas according to Łukasiewicz 3-valued matrices MŁ3. Following Wojcicki, in addition, we shall consider two alternative interpretations of Ł3: ‘truth-preserving’ Ł3a and ‘well-determined’ Ł3b defined by two different consequence relations on the 3-valued matrices MŁ3. The aim of this article is to provide a Routley–Meyer ternary semantics for each one of these three versions of Łukasiewicz 3-valued logic: Ł3, Ł3a and Ł3b.

Routley–Meyer semantics (RM-semantics) is defined for Gödel 3-valued logic G3 and some logics related to it among which a paraconsistent one differing only from G3 in the interpretation of negation is to be remarked. The logics are defined in the Hilbert-style way and also by means of proof-theoretical and semantical consequence relations. The RM-semantics is defined upon the models for Routley and Meyer’s basic positive logic B+, the weakest positive RM-semantics. In this way, it is to be expected that the models defined can be adapted to other related many-valued logics

The logic TW+ is positive Ticket Entailment without the contraction axiom. Constructive negation is understood in the (minimal) intuitionistic sense but without paradoxes of relevance. It is shown how to introduce a constructive negation of this kind in positive logics at least as strong as TW+. Special attention is paid to the reductio axioms. Concluding remarks about relevance, modal and entailment logics are stated. Complete relational ternary semantics are provided for the logics introduced in this paper.