Heinrich Wansing

In this paper, Graham Priest’s understanding of dialetheism, the view that there exist true contradictions, is discussed, and various kinds of metaphysical dialetheism are distinguished between. An alternative to dialetheism is presented, namely a thesis called ‘dimathematism’. It is pointed out that dimathematism enables one to escape a slippery slope argument for dialetheism that has been put forward by Priest. Moreover, dimathematism is presented as a thesis that is helpful in rejecting the claim that logic is a normative discipline.

Various connexive FDE-based modal logics are studied. Some of these logics contain a conditional that is both connexive and strict, thereby highlighting that strictness and connexivity of a conditional do not exclude each other. In particular, the connexive modal logics cBK-\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$^{-}$$\end{document}, cKN4, scBK-\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$^{-}$$\end{document}, scKN4, cMBL, and scMBL are introduced semantically by means of classes of Kripke models. The logics cBK-\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$^{-}$$\end{document} and cKN4 are connexive variants of the FDE-based modal logics BK-\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$^{-}$$\end{document} and KN4 with a weak and a strong implication, respectively. The system cMBL is a connexive variant of the modal bilattice logic MBL. The latter is a modal extension of Arieli and Avron’s logic of logical bilattices and is characterized by a class of Kripke models with a four-valued accessibility relation. In the systems scBK-\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$^{-}$$\end{document}, scKN4, and scMBL, the conditional is both connexive and strict. Sound and complete tableau calculi for all these logics are presented and used to show that the entailment relations of the systems under consideration are decidable for finite premise set. Moreover, the logics cBK-\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathbf {cBK}^-$$\end{document} and cMBL\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathbf {cMBL}$$\end{document} are shown to be algebraizable. The algebraizability of cMBL\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathbf {cMBL}$$\end{document} is derived from proving cMBL\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathbf {cMBL}$$\end{document} to be definitionally equivalent to MBL\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathbf {MBL}$$\end{document}. All connexive modal logics studied in this paper are decidable, paraconsistent, and inconsistent but non-trivial logics.

Francesco Berto proposed a logic for imaginative episodes. The logic establishes certain (in)validities concerning episodic imagination. They are not all equally plausible as principles of episodic imagination. The logic also does not model that the initial input of an imaginative episode is deliberately chosen.Stit-imagination logic models the imagining agent’s deliberate choice of the content of their imagining. However, the logic does not model the episodic nature of imagination. The present paper combines the two logics, thereby modelling imaginative episodes with deliberately chosen initial input. We use a combination ofstit-imagination logic and a content-sensitive variably strict conditional à la Berto, for which we give a Chellas–Segerberg semantics. The proposed semantics has the following advantages over Berto’s: (i) we model thedeliberate choiceof initial input of imaginative episodes (in a multi-agent setting), (ii) we showframe correspondencesfor axiomatic analogues of Berto’s validities, which (iii) allows thepossibility to disregard axiomsthat might be considered not plausible as principles concerning imaginative episodes. We do not take a definite stance on whether theseshouldbe disregarded but give reasons for why one might want to disregard them. Finally, we compare our semantics briefly with recent work, which aims to model voluntary imagination, and argue that our semantics models different aspects.

The present monograph is a slightly revised version of my Habilitations schrift Proof-theoretic Aspects of Intensional and Non-Classical Logics, successfully defended at Leipzig University, November 1997. It collects work on proof systems for modal and constructive logics I have done over the last few years. The main concern is display logic, a certain refinement of Gentzen's sequent calculus developed by Nuel D. Belnap. This book is far from offering a comprehensive presentation of generalized sequent systems for modal logics broadly conceived. The proof-theory of non-classical logics is a rapidly developing field, and even the generalizations of the ordinary notion of sequent listed in Chapter 1 can hardly be presented in great detail within a single volume. In addition to further investigating the various approaches toward generalized Gentzen systems, it is important to compare them and to discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages. An initial attempt at bringing together work on different kinds of proof systems for modal logics has been made in [188]. Another step in the same direction is [196]. Since Chapter 1 contains introductory considerations and, moreover, every remaining chapter begins with some surveying or summarizing remarks, in this preface I shall only emphasize a relation to philosophy that is important to me, register the sources of papers that have entered this book in some form or another, and acknowledge advice and support.

Modal logic is one of the most widely applied logical formalisms. Systems of modal logic are being used in many disciplines, ranging from artificial intelligence, computer science, mathematics, formal grammar and semantics to philosophy. This volume presents substantial recent advances in the relational and the algorithmic treatment of modal logics. It contains papers from the fifth conference on "Advances in Modal logic," held in Manchester (UK) in September 2004. Written by leading experts in the field, the present book is indispensable for any advanced student and researcher in pure and applied modal logic.

Modal logic originated in philosophy as the logic of necessity and possibility. Now it has reached a high level of mathematical sophistication and has many applications in a variety of disciplines, including theoretical and applied computer science, artificial intelligence, the foundations of mathematics, and natural language syntax and semantics. This volume represents the proceedings of the first international workshop on Advances in Modal Logic, held in Berlin, Germany, October 8-10, 1996. It offers an up-to-date perspective on the field, with contributions covering its proof theory, its applications in knowledge representation, computing and mathematics, as well as its theoretical underpinnings.

The properties of negation, in combination with those of other logical operations and structural features of the deductibility relation, serve as gateways among logical systems. Negation therefore plays an important role in selecting logical systems for particular applications. This volume provides a thorough treatment of this concept, based on contributions written by authors from various branches of logic. The resulting 14 research papers address a variety of topics including negation in relevant logics; a defense of dialetheic theory of negation; stable negation in logic programming; antirealism and falsity; and negation, denial, and language change in philosophical logic. Suited to scholars and graduate students in the fields of philosophy, logic mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR.

We compare the logic HYPE recently suggested by H. Leitgeb as a basic propositional logic to deal with hyperintensional contexts and Heyting-Ockham logic introduced in the course of studying logical aspects of the well-founded semantics for logic programs with negation. The semantics of Heyting-Ockham logic makes use of the so-called Routley star negation. It is shown how the Routley star negation can be obtained from Dimiter Vakarelov’s theory of negation and that propositional HYPE coincides with the logic characterized by the class of all involutive Routley star information frames. This result provides a much simplified semantics for HYPE and also a simplified axiomatization, which shows that HYPE is identical with the modal symmetric propositional calculus introduced by G. Moisil in 1942. Moreover, it is shown that HYPE can be faithfully embedded into a normal bi-modal logic based on classical logic. Against this background, we discuss the notion of hyperintensionality.

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.

We present novel proof systems for various FDE-based modal logics. Among the systems considered are a number of Belnapian modal logics introduced in Odintsov & Wansing and Odintsov & Wansing, as well as the modal logic KN4 with strong implication introduced in Goble. In particular, we provide a Hilbert-style axiom system for the logic $BK^{\square - } $ and characterize the logic BK as an axiomatic extension of the system $BK^{FS} $. For KN4 we provide both an FDE-style axiom system and a decidable sequent calculus for which a contraction elimination and a cut elimination result are shown.

This volume is dedicated to Prof. Dag Prawitz and his outstanding contributions to philosophical and mathematical logic. Prawitz's eminent contributions to structural proof theory, or general proof theory, as he calls it, and inference-based meaning theories have been extremely influential in the development of modern proof theory and anti-realistic semantics. In particular, Prawitz is the main author on natural deduction in addition to Gerhard Gentzen, who defined natural deduction in his PhD thesis published in 1934. The book opens with an introductory paper that surveys Prawitz's numerous contributions to proof theory and proof-theoretic semantics and puts his work into a somewhat broader perspective, both historically and systematically. Chapters include either in-depth studies of certain aspects of Dag Prawitz's work or address open research problems that are concerned with core issues in structural proof theory and range from philosophical essays to papers of a mathematical nature. Investigations into the necessity of thought and the theory of grounds and computational justifications as well as an examination of Prawitz's conception of the validity of inferences in the light of three “dogmas of proof-theoretic semantics” are included. More formal papers deal with the constructive behaviour of fragments of classical logic and fragments of the modal logic S4 among other topics. In addition, there are chapters about inversion principles, normalization of proofs, and the notion of proof-theoretic harmony and other areas of a more mathematical persuasion. Dag Prawitz also writes a chapter in which he explains his current views on the epistemic dimension of proofs and addresses the question why some inferences succeed in conferring evidence on their conclusions when applied to premises for which one already possesses evidence.

Justification stit logic is a logic for reasoning about proving as a certain kind of activity, namely seeing to it that a proof is publicly available. It merges the semantical analysis of deliberatively seeing-to-it-that from stit theory and the semantics of the epistemic logic with justification from. In this paper, after recalling its language and basic semantical definitions, various ramifications and refinements of justification stit logic are presented and discussed: imposing natural restrictions upon the class of models under consideration, making use of modalities that assert the existence of a proof, introducing a variant of justification stit logic based on a semantics introduced by M. Fitting, and adding variable-binding operators and extending the set of proof polynomials.

In this paper, we shall consider the so-called cancellation view of negation and the inferential role of contradictions. We will discuss some of the problematic aspects of negation as cancellation, such as its original presentation by Richard and Valery Routley and its role in motivating connexive logic. Furthermore, we will show that the idea of inferential ineffectiveness of contradictions can be conceptually separated from the cancellation model of negation by developing a system we call qLPm, a combination of Graham Priest’s minimally inconsistent Logic of Paradox with q-entailment as introduced by Grzegorz Malinowski.

In this paper we consider logical inference as an activity that results in proofs and hence produces knowledge. We suggest to merge the semantical analysis of deliberatively seeing-to-it-that from stit theory and the semantics of the epistemic logic with justification from. The general idea is to understand proving that A as seeing to it that a proof of A is available. We introduce a semantics of various notions of proving as an activity and present a number of valid principles that relate the various notions of proving to each other and to notions of justified knowledge, implicit knowledge, and possibility. We also point out and comment upon certain principles our semantics fails to validate.