José M. Méndez

Łukasiewicz three-valued logic Ł3 is often understood as the set of all 3-valued valid formulas according to Łukasiewicz’s 3-valued matrices. Following Wojcicki, in addition, we shall consider two alternative interpretations of Ł3: “well-determined” Ł3a and “truth-preserving” Ł3b defined by two different consequence relations on the 3-valued matrices. The aim of this paper is to provide dual equivalent two-valued under-determined and over-determined interpretations for Ł3, Ł3a and Ł3b. The logic Ł3 is axiomatized as an extension of Routley and Meyer’s basic positive logic following Brady’s strategy for axiomatizing many-valued logics by employing two-valued under-determined or over-determined interpretations. Finally, it is proved that “well determined” Łukasiewicz logics are paraconsistent.

Entendemos el concepto de “negación mínima” en el sentido clásico definido por Johansson. El propósito de este artículo es definir la lógica positiva mínima Bp+, y probar que la negación mínima puede introducirse en ella. Además, comentaremos algunas de las múltiples extensiones negativas de Bp+.“Minimal negation” is classically understood in a Johansson sense. The aim of this paper is to define the minimal positive logic Bp+ and prove that a minimal negation can be inroduced in it. In addition, some of the many possible negation extensions of Bp+ are commented.

A system S has the “converse Ackermann property” (C.A.P.) if (A -> B) -> C is unprovable in S whenever C is a propositional variable. In this paper we define the fragments with the C.A.P. of some well-know propositional systems in the spectrum between the minimal and classical logic. In the first part we succesively study the implicative and positive fragments and the full calculi. In the second, we prove by a matrix method that each one of the systems has the C.A.P. Thus, we think the problem proposed in Anderson & Belnap (1975) § 8.12 has been solved.

Let R+ be the positive fragment of Anderson and Belnap’s Logic of Relevance, R. And let RMO+ be the result of adding the Mingle principle ) to R+. We have shown in [2] that either a minimal negation or else a semiclassical one can be added to RMO+ preserving the variable-sharing property. Moreover, each of there systems is given a semantics in the Routley-Meyer style. In describing in [2] the models for RMO+ plus minimal negation, we noted that a similar strategy would give us a semantics for R+ with minimal negation; that is, constructive R. The aim of this paper is to prove this claim

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).

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

In his paper “Recent work in relevant logic”, Jago includes a section on Disjunctive Syllogism . The content of the section essentially consists of (a) a valuation of some work by Robles and Méndez on the topic as “not particularly interesting in itself”; (b) a statement establishing that “What would be interesting is to discover just how weak a relevant logic needs to be before disjunctive syllogism becomes inadmissible”. The main problem with this section of Jago’s paper on DS is that the author is unaware of the recent important results on the topic. I show that (1) the valuation in (a) is groundless and (2) the ill-formulated problem in (b) is solved in the recent literature on relevant logics.