Andrew Tedder

The relationship between logics with sets of theorems including contradictions (“inconsistent logics”) and theories closed under such logics is investigated. It is noted that if we take “theories” to be defined in terms of deductive closure understood in a way somewhat different from the standard, Tarskian, one, inconsistent logics can have consistent theories. That is, we can find some sets of formulas the closure of which under some inconsistent logic need not contain any contradictions. We prove this in a general setting for a family of relevant connexive logics, extract the essential features of the proof in order to obtain a sufficient condition for the consistency of a theory in arbitrary logics, and finally consider some concrete examples of consistent mathematical theories in Abelian logic. The upshot is that on this way of understanding deductive closure, common to relevant logics, there is a rich and interesting kind of interaction between inconsistent logics and their theories. We argue that this suggests an important avenue for investigation of inconsistent logics, from both a technical and a philosophical perspective.

Kapsner strong logics, originally studied in the context of connexive logics, are those in which all formulas of the form \(A\rightarrow \lnot A\) or \(\lnot A\rightarrow A\) are unsatisfiable, and in any model at most one of \(A\rightarrow B, A\rightarrow \lnot B\) is satisfied. In this paper, such logics are studied algebraically by means of algebraic structures in which negation is modeled by an operator \(\lnot \) s.t. any element _a_ is incomparable with \(\lnot a\). A range of properties which are (in)compatible with such operators are studied, and examples are given; finally, the question of which further operators can be added to such structures is broached.

Relevant propositional dynamic logics have been sporadically discussed in the broader context of modal relevant logics, but have not come up for sustained investigation until recently. In this paper, we develop a philosophical motivation for these systems, and present some new results suggested by the proposed motivation. Among these, we’ll show how to adapt some recent work to show that the extensions of relevant logics by the extensional truth constants \ are complete with respect to a natural class of ternary relation models to show a similar result for the constant-free versions of the logic. In addition, we prove that the logics in question satisfy the variable sharing property, vindicating the claim that they really are relevant logics.

We investigate an information based generalization of the incompatibility-frame treatment of logics with non-classical negation connectives. Our framework can be viewed as an alternative to the neighbourhood semantics for extensions of lattice logic by various negation connectives, investigated by Hartonas. We set out the basic semantic framework, along with some correspondence results for extensions. We describe three kinds of constructions of canonical models and show that double negation law is not canonical with respect to any of these constructions. We also compare our semantics to Hartonas’.

One way to model epistemic states of agents more realistically is to represent these states by sets of situations rather than possible worlds. In this paper we discuss representations of epistemic update in terms of situations. After linking epistemic update based on deleting epistemic accessibility arrows with update of situations, we discuss two specific kinds of public epistemic update; monotonic update in intuitionistic dynamic epistemic logic, and non-monotonic update in substructural dynamic epistemic logic. Our investigation is mainly conceptual, but leads to completeness results using reduction axioms, and lays the groundwork for future investigation into the concept of situated epistemic update.

The Mares-Goldblatt semantics for quantified relevant logics have been developed for first-order extensions of R, and a range of other relevant logics and modal extensions thereof. All such work has taken place in the the ternary relation semantic framework, most famously developed by Sylvan and Meyer. In this paper, the Mares-Goldblatt technique for the interpretation of quantifiers is adapted to the more general neighbourhood semantic framework, developed by Sylvan, Meyer, and, more recently, Goble. This more algebraic semantics allows one to characterise a still wider range of logics, and provides the grist for some new results. To showcase this, we show, using some non-augmented models, that some quantified relevant logics are not conservatively extended by connectives the addition of which do conservatively extend the associated propositional logics, namely fusion and the dual implication. We close by proposing some further uses to which the neighbourhood Mares-Goldblatt semantics may be put.

In this paper we explore the following question: how weak can a logic be for Rosser’s essential undecidability result to be provable for a weak arithmetical theory? It is well known that Robinson’s Q is essentially undecidable in intuitionistic logic, and P. Hájek proved it in the fuzzy logic BL for Grzegorczyk’s variant of Q which interprets the arithmetic operations as nontotal nonfunctional relations. We present a proof of essential undecidability in a much weaker substructural logic and for a much weaker arithmetic theory, a version of Robinson’s R (with arithmetic operations also interpreted as mere relations). Our result is based on a structural version of the undecidability argument introduced by Kleene and we show that it goes well beyond the scope of the Boolean, intuitionistic, or fuzzy logic.

Situation theory, and channel theory in particular, have been used to provide motivational accounts of the ternary relation semantics of relevant, substructural, and various non-classical logics. Among the constraints imposed by channel-theory, we must posit a certain existence criterion for situations which result from the composites of multiple channels (this is used in modeling information flow). In associative non-classical logics, it is relatively easy to show that a certain such condition is met, but the problem is trickier in non-associative logics. Following Tedder (2017), where it was shown that the conjunction-conditional fragment of the logic B admits the existence of composite channels, I present a generalised ver- sion of the previous argument, appropriate to logics with disjunction, in the neighbourhood ternary relation semantic framework. I close by suggesting that the logic BB+(^I), which falls between Lavers' system BB+ and B+ , satisfies the conditions for the general argument to go through (and prove that it satisfies all but one of those conditions).

We present an objection to Beall & Henderson’s recent paper defending a solution to the fundamental problem of conciliar Christology using qua or secundum clauses. We argue that certain claims the acceptance/rejection of which distinguish the Conciliar Christian from others fail to so distinguish on Beall & Henderson’s 0-Qua view. This is because on their 0-Qua account, these claims are either acceptable both to Conciliar Christians as well as those who are not Conciliar Christians or because they are acceptable to neither.

Beall and Cotnoir (2017) argue that theists may accept the claim that God's omnipotence is fully unrestricted if they also adopt a suitable nonclassical logic. Their primary focus is on the infamous Stone problem (i.e., whether God can create a stone too heavy for God to lift). We show how unrestricted omnipotence generates Curry‐like paradoxes. The upshot is that Beall and Cotnoir only provide a solution to one version of the Stone problem, but that unrestricted omnipotence generates other problems which they do not adequately address.

In this paper we explore the following question: how weak can a logic be for Rosser's essential undecidability result to be provable for a weak arithmetical theory? It is well known that Robinson's Q is essentially undecidable in intuitionistic logic, and P. Hajek proved it in the fuzzy logic BL for Grzegorczyk's variant of Q which interprets the arithmetic operations as non-total non-functional relations. We present a proof of essential undecidability in a much weaker substructural logic and for a much weaker arithmetic theory, a version of Robinson's R (with arithmetic operations also interpreted as mere relations). Our result is based on a structural version of the undecidability argument introduced by Kleene and we show that it goes well beyond the scope of the Boolean, intuitionistic, or fuzzy logic.

The collapse models of arithmetic are inconsistent, nontrivial models obtained from ℕ and set out in the Logic of Paradox (LP). They are given a general treatment by Priest (Priest, 2000). Finite collapse models are decidable, and thus axiomatizable, because finite. LP, however, is ill-suited to normal axiomatic reasoning, as it invalidates Modus Ponens, and almost all other usual conditional inferences. I set out a logic, A3, first given by Avron (Avron, 1991), and give a first order axiom system for the finite collapse models. I present some standard arithmetical axioms in addition to a cyclic axiom and prove that these axioms are sound and complete for the cyclic models, reporting a similar result for the heap models. The state of the situation for the each of the kinds of infinite collapse model is, however, left an open question.