Joanna Golinska-Pilarek

In 2011, Andrzej Grzegorczyk formulated Logic of Descriptions, a new logical system in which the classical equivalence has been replaced with the descriptive equivalence. Two sentences are descriptively equivalent whenever they describe the same state of affairs. Grzegorczyk’s logic LD is built from the ground up by revising the axioms of classical propositional logic and rejecting those that do not correspond to the intended interpretation of the descriptive equivalence as the connective expressing equimeaning relations between sentences. Grzegorczyk’s last paper, which introduced in detail philosophical motivations of LD and its axiomatization, has become an inspiration for investigating the properties of LD and its various modifications. In this paper we present the basics of Grzegorczyk’s logic LD and then we survey the recent results on LD that have shed light on mysterious properties of the Grzegorczyk’s descriptive equivalence connective.

A non-Fregean framework aims to provide a formal tool for reasoning about semantic denotations of sentences and their interactions. Extending a logic to its non-Fregean version involves introducing a new connective $$\equiv $$ ≡ that allows to separate denotations of sentences from their logical values. Intuitively, $$\equiv $$ ≡ combines two sentences $$\varphi $$ φ and $$\psi $$ ψ into a true one whenever $$\varphi $$ φ and $$\psi $$ ψ have the same semantic correlates, describe the same situations, or have the same content or meaning. The paper aims to compare non-Fregean paraconsistent Grzegorczyk’s logics (Logic of Descriptions $$\textsf{LD}$$ LD, Logic of Descriptions with Suszko’s Axioms $$\textsf{LDS}$$ LDS, Logic of Equimeaning $$\textsf{LDE}$$ LDE ) with non-Fregean versions of certain well-known paraconsistent logics (Jaśkowski’s Discussive Logic $$\textsf{D}_2$$ D 2, Logic of Paradox $$\textsf{LP}$$ LP, Logics of Formal Inconsistency $$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$ LFI 1 and $$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$ LFI 2 ). We prove that Grzegorczyk’s logics are either weaker than or incomparable to non-Fregean extensions of $$\textsf{LP}$$ LP, $$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$ LFI 1, $$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$ LFI 2. Furthermore, we show that non-Fregean extensions of $$\textsf{LP}$$ LP, $$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$ LFI 1, $$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$ LFI 2, and $$\textsf{D}_2$$ D 2 are more expressive than their original counterparts. Our results highlight that the non-Fregean connective $$\equiv $$ ≡ can serve as a tool for expressing various properties of the ontology underlying the logics under consideration.