Arnon Avron

Around 1950, B.A. Trakhtenbrot proved an important undecidability result (known, by a pure accident, as \Trakhtenbrot's theorem"): there is no algorithm to decide, given a rst-order sentence, whether the sentence is satis able in some nite model. The result is in fact true even if we restrict ourselves to languages that has only one binary relation Tra63]. It is hardly conceivable that at that time Prof. Trakhtenbrot expected his result to in uence the development of the theory of relational databases query languages, but it did. This perhaps is not surprising in view of the following two facts: 1) The theory of relational databases is strongly rooted in logic and can easily be abstracted to make it a branch of mathematical logic. 2) The main interest in the theory of relational databases is in nite relations. In the rst section we explain those two points in more detail. Then, in section 2 of the present paper, we discuss the question: \What constitutes a reasonable query to a database?" The discussion naturally leads to a certain class of queries, known as the \domain independent" queries, as an ideal query language. At this point Trakhtenbrot's theorem appears as a major obstacle, since it easily implies that this ideal class is undecidable. Real query languages cannot be allowed to have this property. Section 3 outlines then several possible ways to circumvent this di culty. The following section explains the..

This paper has two goals. First, we develop frameworks for logical systems which are able to reflect not only non-monotonic patterns of reasoning, but also paraconsistent reasoning. Our second goal is to have a better understanding of the conditions that a useful relation for nonmonotonic reasoning should satisfy. For this we consider a sequence of generalizations of the pioneering works of Gabbay, Kraus, Lehmann, Magidor and Makinson. These generalizations allow the use of monotonic nonclassical logics as the underlying logic upon which nonmonotonic reasoning may be based. Our sequence of frameworks culminates in what we call plausible, nonmonotonic, multiple-conclusion consequences relations. Our study yields intuitive justifications for conditions that have been proposed in previous frameworks and also clarifies the connections among some of these systems. In addition, we present a general method for constructing plausible nonmonotonic relations. This method is based on a multiple-valued semantics, and on Shoham's idea of preferential models.

We define the notions of a canonical inference rule and a canonical system in the framework of single-conclusion Gentzen-type systems (or, equivalently, natural deduction systems), and prove that such a canonical system is non-trivial iff it is coherent (where coherence is a constructive condition). Next we develop a general non-deterministic Kripke-style semantics for such systems, and show that every constructive canonical system (i.e. coherent canonical single-conclusion system) induces a class of non-deterministic Kripke-style frames for which it is strongly sound and complete. We use this non-deterministic semantics to show that all constructive canonical systems admit a strong form of the cut-elimination theorem. We also use it for providing a decision procedure for every such system. These results identify a large family of basic constructive connectives, each having both a proof-theoretical characterization in terms of a coherent set of canonical rules, as well as a semantic characterization using non-deterministic frames. The family includes the standard intuitionistic connectives, together with many other independent connectives.

A quasi-canonical Gentzen-type system is a Gentzen-type system in which each logical rule introduces either a formula of the form, or of the form, and all the active formulas of its premises belong to the set. In this paper we investigate quasi-canonical systems in which exactly one of the two classical rules for negation is included, turning the induced logic into either a paraconsistent logic or a paracomplete logic, but not both. We provide a constructive coherence criterion for such systems, and show that a quasi-canonical system of the type we investigate is coherent iff it is strongly paraconsistent or strongly paracomplete (in a sense defined in the paper), iff it has a trivalent, non-deterministic semantics of a special type (also defined in the paper) for which it is sound and complete. Finally, we determine when a system of this sort admits cut-elimination, and provide a simple procedure for transforming one which does not into one which does.

We show by way of example how one can provide in a lot of cases simple modular semantics for rules of inference, so that the semantics of a system is obtained by joining the semantics of its rules in the most straightforward way. Our main tool for this task is the use of finite Nmatrices, which are multi-valued structures in which the value assigned by a valuation to a complex formula can be chosen non-deterministically out of a certain nonempty set of options. The method is applied in the area of logics with a formal consistency operator (known as LFIs), allowing us to provide in a modular way effective, finite semantics for thousands of different LFIs.

We define in precise terms the basic properties that an ‘ideal propositional paraconsistent logic’ is expected to have, and investigate the relations between them. This leads to a precise characterization of ideal propositional paraconsistent logics. We show that every three-valued paraconsistent logic which is contained in classical logic, and has a proper implication connective, is ideal. Then we show that for every n > 2 there exists an extensive family of ideal n -valued logics, each one of which is not equivalent to any k -valued logic with k < n.

We present and discuss various formalizations of Modal Logics in Logical Frameworks based on Type Theories. We consider both Hilbert- and Natural Deduction-style proof systems for representing both truth (local) and validity (global) consequence relations for various Modal Logics. We introduce several techniques for encoding the structural peculiarities of necessitation rules, in the typed -calculus metalanguage of the Logical Frameworks. These formalizations yield readily proof-editors for Modal Logics when implemented in Proof Development Environments, such as Coq or LEGO.

An (n, k)-ary quantifier is a generalized logical connective, binding k variables and connecting n formulas. Canonical systems with (n, k)-ary quantifiers form a natural class of Gentzen-type systems which in addition to the standard axioms and structural rules have only logical rules in which exactly one occurrence of a quantifier is introduced. The semantics for these systems is provided using two-valued non-deterministic matrices, a generalization of the classical matrix. In this paper we use a constructive syntactic criterion of coherence to characterize strong cutelimination in such systems. We show that the following properties of a canonical system G with arbitrary (n, k)-ary quantifiers are equivalent: (i) G is coherent, (ii) G admits strong cut-elimination, and (iii) G has a strongly characteristic two-valued generalized non-deterministic matrix.

A paraconsistent logic is a logic which allows non-trivial inconsistent theories. One of the oldest and best known approaches to the problem of designing useful paraconsistent logics is da Costa’s approach, which seeks to allow the use of classical logic whenever it is safe to do so, but behaves completely differently when contradictions are involved. da Costa’s approach has led to the family of Logics of Formal (In)consistency (LFIs). In this paper we provide non-deterministic semantics for a very large family of first-order LFIs (which includes da Costa’s original system..

In advanced books and courses on logic (e.g. Sm], BM]) Gentzen-type systems or their dual, tableaux, are described as techniques for showing validity of formulae which are more practical than the usual Hilbert-type formalisms. People who have learnt these methods often wonder why the Automated Reasoning community seems to ignore them and prefers instead the resolution method. Some of the classical books on AD (such as CL], Lo]) do not mention these methods at all. Others (such as Ro]) do, but the connections and reasons for preference remain unclear after reading them (at least to the present author, and obviously also the authors of OS], in which a theorem-prover, based exclusively on tableaux, is described). The confusion becomes greater when the reader is introduced to Kowalski's form of a clause ( Ko], Bu]), which is nothing but a Gentzen's sequent of atomic formulae, and when he realizes that resolution is just a form of a Cut, and so that while the elimination of cuts is the principal tool in proof-theory, its use is the main technique in AD!

Until not too many years ago, all logics except classical logic (and, perhaps, intuitionistic logic too) were considered to be things esoteric. Today this state of a airs seems to have completely been changed. There is a growing interest in many types of nonclassical logics: modal and temporal logics, substructural logics, paraconsistent logics, non-monotonic logics { the list is long. The diversity of systems that have been proposed and studied is so great that a need is felt by many researchers to try to put some order in the present logical jungle. Thus Cl91], Ep90] and Wo88] are three recent books in which an attempt is made to develop a general theoretical framework for the study of logics. On the more pragmatic side, several systems have been developed with the goal of providing a computerized logical framework in which many di erent logical systems can be implemented in a uniform way. An example is the Edinburgh LF( HHP91])

Propositional canonical Gentzen-type systems, introduced in [2], are systems which in addition to the standard axioms and structural rules have only logical rules in which exactly one occurrence of a connective is introduced and no other connective is mentioned. [2] provides a constructive coherence criterion for the non-triviality of such systems and shows that a system of this kind admits cut-elimination iff it is coherent. The semantics of such systems is provided using two-valued non-deterministic matrices (2Nmatrices). [23] extends these results to systems with unary quantifiers of a very restricted form. In this paper we substantially extend the characterization of canonical systems to (n, k)-ary quantifiers, which bind k distinct variables and connect n formulas, and show that the coherence criterion remains constructive for such systems. Then we focus on the case of k ∈ {0, 1} and show that the following statements concerning a canonical calculus G are equivalent: (i) G is coherent, (ii) G has a strongly characteristic 2Nmatrix, and (iii) G admits strong cut-elimination. We also show that coherence is not a necessary condition for standard cut-elimination, and then characterize a subclass of canonical systems for which this property does hold.

In the paper we explore the idea of describing Pawlak’s rough sets using three-valued logic, whereby the value t corresponds to the positive region of a set, the value f — to the negative region, and the undefined value u — to the border of the set. Due to the properties of the above regions in rough set theory, the semantics of the logic is described using a non-deterministic matrix (Nmatrix). With the strong semantics, where only the value t is treated as designated, the above logic is a “common denominator” for Kleene and Łukasiewicz 3-valued logics, which represent its two different “determinizations”. In turn, the weak semantics—where both t and u are treated as designated—represents such a “common denominator” for two major 3-valued paraconsistent logics. We give sound and complete, cut-free sequent calculi for both versions of the logic generated by the rough set Nmatrix. Then we derive from these calculi sequent calculi with the same properties for the various “determinizations” of those two versions of the logic (including Łukasiewicz 3-valued logic). Finally, we show how to embed the four above-mentioned determinizations in extensions of the basic rough set logics obtained by adding to those logics a special two-valued “definedness” or “crispness” operator.

The notion of a bilattice was rst introduced by Ginsburg (see Gin]) as a general framework for a diversity of applications (such as truth maintenance systems, default inferences and others). The notion was further investigated and applied for various purposes by Fitting (see Fi1]- Fi6]). The main idea behind bilattices is to use structures in which there are two (partial) order relations, having di erent interpretations. The two relations should, of course, be connected somehow in order for the mathematical structure to be useful. It is not clear, however, what this connection should be. Ginsberg, for example, has made the connection through an extra operation of negation. Fitting, on the other hand, has investigated connections in the form of conditions on the structure (such as being interlaced { see below). These conditions are independent of the existence, or even the possibility to de ne, operations like Ginsberg's negation.* Fitting de nes, accordingly, notions like \an interlaced bilattice", \a distributive bilattice", \a bilattice with negation" and others. He does not provide, however, any de nition of the notion of bilattice itself (without an extra modi er). I was unable to nd anywhere, in fact, a de nition which will cover all the structures which were called \bilattice" in the literature.

In the paper we examine the use of non-classical truth values for dealing with computation errors in program specification and validation. In that context, 3-valued McCarthy logic is suitable for handling lazy sequential computation, while 3-valued Kleene logic can be used for reasoning about parallel computation. If we want to be able to deal with both strategies without distinguishing between them, we combine Kleene and McCarthy logics into a logic based on a non-deterministic, 3-valued matrix, incorporating both options as a non-deterministic choice. If the two strategies are to be distinguished, Kleene and McCarthy logics are combined into a logic based on a 4-valued deterministic matrix featuring two kinds of computation errors which correspond to the two computation strategies described above. For the resulting logics, we provide sound and complete calculi of ordinary, two-valued sequents.