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 (by using Dunn semantics) 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

A prepositional logic S has the Converse Ackermann Property (CAP) if (AB)C is unprovable in S when C does not contain . In A Routley-Meyer semantics for Converse Ackermann Property (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16 (1987), pp. 65–76) I showed how to derive positive logical systems with the CAP. There I conjectured that each of these positive systems were compatible with a so-called semiclassical negation. In the present paper I prove that this conjecture was right. Relational Routley-Meyer type semantics are provided for each one of the resulting systems (the positive systems plus the semiclassical negation).

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.

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.

Etude de l'extension par la negation semi-intuitionniste de la logique positive des propositions appelee logique C, developpee par A. Urquhart afin de definir une semantique relationnelle valable pour la logique des valeurs infinies de Lukasiewicz (Lw). Evitant les axiomes de contraction et de reduction propres a la logique classique de Dummett, l'A. propose une semantique de type Routley-Meyer pour le systeme d'Urquhart (CI) en tant que celle-la ne fournit que des theories consistantes pour la completude de celui-ci

Łukasiewicz presented two different analyses of modal notions by means of many-valued logics: the linearly ordered systems Ł3,..., Open image in new window,..., \; the 4-valued logic Ł he defined in the last years of his career. Unfortunately, all these systems contain “Łukasiewicz type paradoxes”. On the other hand, Brady’s 4-valued logic BN4 is the basic 4-valued bilattice logic. The aim of this paper is to show that BN4 can be strengthened with modal operators following Łukasiewicz’s strategy for defining truth-functional modal logics. The systems we define lack “Łukasiewicz type paradoxes”. Following Brady, we endow them with Belnap–Dunn type bivalent semantics.

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).