Heinrich Wansing

Two new first-order paraconsistent logics with De Morgan-type negations and co-implication, called symmetric paraconsistent logic (SPL) and dual paraconsistent logic (DPL), are introduced as Gentzen-type sequent calculi. The logic SPL is symmetric in the sense that the rule of contraposition is admissible in cut-free SPL. By using this symmetry property, a simpler cut-free sequent calculus for SPL is obtained. The logic DPL is not symmetric, but it has the duality principle. Simple semantics for SPL and DPL are introduced, and the completeness theorems with respect to these semantics are proved. The cut-elimination theorems for SPL and DPL are proved in two ways: One is a syntactical way which is based on the embedding theorems of SPL and DPL into Gentzen’s LK, and the other is a semantical way which is based on the completeness theorems.

Science today is an international business, of course, and there has hardly ever been a partition wall between the logical work in Poland and Germany. However, apart from long lasting personal scientific contacts there are good reasons to further intensify the relations between the German and the Polish Community of Logic and Logical Philosophy. So it was only natural to think about bringing them together at a scientific event in a friendly environment. This idea was carried out as a common initiative of the Polish Association for Logic and Theory of Science (PTL) and of the German based Society for Analytic Philosophy (GAP). The First German-Polish Workshop on Logic and Logical Philosophy was held in Bachotek/Poland from September 10.–13., 1995. It was organized by Kazimierz Świrydowicz (PTL), Heinrich Wansing (GAP) and Max Urchs (both). This part of the present volume of Logic and Logical Philosophy is not the proceedings of the workshop. On one hand, not all the papers presented at the workshop (see previous page for the programme) are attended to this volume. Due to their more technical character, the contributions of Gregory Restall, Tomasz Skura, Heinrich Wansing, Andrzej Wroński and others will appear in the next number of Reports on Mathematical Logic. Some papers included in this issue were changed considerably for publication. On the other hand, colleagues who intended to join the workshop but had to cancel for some reason were invited to submit their material, too. We would like to thank the editors of both journals very kindly for their suggestion to publish the submitted material

This edited volume collects essays on the four-valued logic known as Belnap-Dunn logic, or first-degree entailment logic. It also looks at various formal systems closely related to it. These include the strong Kleene logic and the Logic of Paradox. Inside, readers will find reprints of seminal papers written by the fathers of the field: Nuel Belnap and Michael Dunn. In addition, the collection also features a well-known but previously unpublished manuscript of Dunn, an interview with Belnap, and a new essay by Dunn. Besides the original, monumental papers, the book also includes research by leading scholars. They consider the extraordinary importance of Belnap-Dunn logic from several perspectives. They look at how, philosophically, it has served as a basic system of inconsistency-tolerant reasoning, as the core of underlying logics for theories based on dialetheism, and, more recently, for theories based on Buddhist philosophy. Coverage also explores its contributions to computer science, such as knowledge representation and information processing. This mix of seminal papers and insightful analysis by top scholars offers readers a comprehensive outlook on Belnap-Dunn logic and its related expansions, which have been agenda setting for the debate on philosophical logic as well as philosophy of logic. The book will also enhance further discussion on the philosophical issues related to nonclassical logics in general.

It is widely accepted that there is a clear sense in which the first-order paraconsistent constructive logic with strong negation of Almukdad and Nelson, QN4, is more constructive than intuitionistic first-order logic, QInt. While QInt and QN4 both possess the disjunction property and the existence property as characteristics of constructiveness (or constructivity), QInt lacks certain features of constructiveness enjoyed by QN4, namely the constructible falsity property and the dual of the existence property. This paper deals with the constructiveness of the contra-classical, connexive, paraconsistent, and contradictory non-trivial first-order logic QC, which is a connexive variant of QN4. It is shown that there is a sense in which QC is even more constructive than QN4. The argument focuses on a problem that is mirror-inverted to Raymond Smullyan’s drinker paradox, namely the invalidity of what will be called the drinker truism and its dual in QN4 (and QInt), and on a version of the Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation of the logical operations that treats proofs and disproofs on a par. The validity of the drinker truism and its dual together with the greater constructiveness of QC in comparison to QN4 may serve as further motivation for the study of connexive logics and suggests that constructive logic is connexive and contradictory (the latter understood as being negation inconsistent).

The book presents a thoroughly elaborated logical theory of generalized truth-values understood as subsets of some established set of truth values. After elucidating the importance of the very notion of a truth value in logic and philosophy, we examine some possible ways of generalizing this notion. The useful four-valued logic of first-degree entailment by Nuel Belnap and the notion of a bilattice constitute the basis for further generalizations. By doing so we elaborate the idea of a multilattice, and most notably, a trilattice of truth values – a specific algebraic structure with information ordering and two distinct logical orderings, one for truth and another for falsity. Each logical order not only induces its own logical vocabulary, but determines also its own entailment relation. We consider both semantic and syntactic ways of formalizing these relations and construct various logical calculi.

We consider an approach to propositional synonymy in proof-theoretic semantics that is defined with respect to a bilateral G3-style sequent calculus \(\mathtt{SC2Int}\) for the bi-intuitionistic logic \(\mathtt{2Int}\). A distinctive feature of \(\mathtt{SC2Int}\) is that it makes use of two kind of sequents, one representing proofs, the other representing refutations. The structural rules of \(\mathtt{SC2Int}\), in particular its cut rules, are shown to be admissible. Next, interaction rules are defined that allow transitions from proofs to refutations, and vice versa, mediated through two different negation connectives, the well-known implies-falsity negation and the less well-known coimplies-truth negation of \(\mathtt{2Int}\). By assuming that the interaction rules have no impact on the identity of derivations, the concept of inherited identity between derivations in \(\mathtt{SC2Int}\) is introduced and the notions of positive and negative synonymy of formulas are defined. Several examples are given of distinct formulas that are either positively or negatively synonymous. It is conjectured that the two conditions cannot be satisfied simultaneously.

The famous “slingshot argument” developed by Church, Gödel, Quine and Davidson is often considered to be a formally strict proof of the Fregean conception that all true sentences, as well as all false ones, have one and the same denotation, namely their corresponding truth value: the true or the false. In this paper we examine the analysis of the slingshot argument by means of a non-Fregean logic undertaken recently by A.Wóitowicz and put to the test her claim that the slingshot argument is in fact circular and presupposes what it intends to prove. We show that this claim is untenable. Nevertheless, the language of non-Fregean logic can serve as a useful tool for representing the slingshot argument, and several versions of the slingshot argument in non-Fregean logics are presented. In particular, a new version of the slingshot argument is presented, which can be circumvented neither by an appeal to a Russellian theory of definite descriptions nor by resorting to an analogous “Russellian” theory of λ–terms.