Claudio Pizzi

It is natural to ask under what conditions negating a conditional is equivalent to negating its consequent. Given a bivalent background logic, this is equivalent to asking about the conjunction of Conditional Excluded Middle (CEM, opposite conditionals are not both false) and Weak Boethius' Thesis (WBT, opposite conditionals are not both true). In the system CI.0 of consequential implication, which is intertranslatable with the modal logic KT, WBT is a theorem, so it is natural to ask which instances of CEM are derivable. We also investigate the systems CIw and CI of consequential implication, corresponding to the modal logics K and KD respectively, with occasional remarks about stronger systems. While unrestricted CEM produces modal collapse in all these systems, CEM restricted to contingent formulas yields the Alt2 axiom (semantically, each world can see at most two worlds), which corresponds to the symmetry of consequential implication. It is proved that in all the main systems considered, a given instance of CEM is derivable if and only if the result of replacing consequential implication by the material biconditional in one or other of its disjuncts is provable. Several related results are also proved. The methods of the paper are those of propositional modal logic as applied to a special sort of conditional.

This volume is based on the papers presented at the international conference Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology (MBR09_BRAZIL), held at the University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil, December 2009. The presentations given at the conference explored how scientific cognition, but several other kinds as well, use models, abduction, and explanatory reasoning to produce important or creative changes in theories and concepts. Some speakers addressed the problem of model-based reasoning in technology, and stressed the issue of science and technological innovation. The various contributions of the book are written by interdisciplinary researchers who are active in the area of creative reasoning in logic, science, and technology: the most recent results and achievements about the topics above are illustrated in detail in the papers. The book is divided in three parts, which cover the following main areas: part I, abduction, problem solving, and practical reasoning; part II: formal and computational aspects of model based reasoning; part III, models, mental models, representations.

The paper introduces a contingential language extended with a propositional constant τ axiomatized in a system named KΔτ , which receives a semantical analysis via relational models. A definition of the necessity operator in terms of Δ and τ allows proving (i) that KΔτ is equivalent to a modal system named K□τ (ii) that both KΔτ and K□τ are tableau-decidable and complete with respect to the defined relational semantics (iii) that the modal τ -free fragment of KΔτ is exactly the deontic system KD. In §4 it is proved that the modal τ -free fragment of a system KΔτw weaker than KΔτ is exactly the minimal normal system K.

In the first part of the paper it is proved that there exists a one–one mapping between a minimal contingential logic extended with a suitable axiom for a propositional constant τ, named KΔτw, and a logic of necessity ${K\square \tau{w}}$ whose language contains ${\square}$ and τ. The form of the proposed translation aims at giving a solution to a problem which was left open in a preceding paper. It is then shown that the presence of τ in the language of KΔτw allows for the definition, in terms of the non-contingency operator Δ, not only of ${\square}$ but of a second necessity operator O. It is observed that this fact opens the road to an investigation of the τ-free multimodal fragments of KΔτw

The basis of the paper is a logic of analytical consequential implication, CI.0, which is known to be equivalent to the well-known modal system KT thanks to the definition A → B = df A ⥽ B ∧ Ξ (Α, Β), Ξ (Α, Β) being a symbol for what is called here Equimodality Property: (□A ≡ □B) ∧ (◊A ≡ ◊B). Extending CI.0 (=KT) with axioms and rules for the so-called circumstantial operator symbolized by *, one obtains a system CI.0*Eq in whose language one can define an operator ↠ suitable to formalize context-dependent conditionals (so to counterfactual conditionals) via the definition (Def ↠) A ↠ B = df *A ⥽ B ∧ Ξ (Α, Β).. The central problem of the paper is to identify inside CI.0*Eq + Def ↠ a set of axioms yielding the fragment consisting of all and only theorems in which only truth-functional operators and the two operators → and ↠ occur. This system, here called CI.0, is introduced in §3. In view of the intended purpose, it is introduced a complete and tableau-decidable system KTw, which is an extension of KT with axioms for the so-called quasi-variables w(A), w(B)… Three translation functions among the three languages used in the paper are then introduced. The first, Tr, maps every wff of form *A into wffs of form w(A) ∧ A and translates theorems of CI.0*Eq into theorems of KTw. The second, t°, translates theorems of CI.0 into theorems of CI.0*Eq by applying Def↠. A third one, t, translates theorems of CI.0 into theorems of KTw. As a consequence, it follows that t°A = TrtA. In §4 it is proved that CI.0 is complete w.r.t. the class of CI.0-models of form where f is a selection function and R an access relation. It is then proved (i) that CI.0 models may be converted into KTw-models; (ii) that the truth-value of a proposition in a world of a CI.0-model is preserved in the same world of the derived KTw-model; (iii) that A is a CI.0-thesis iff its translation tA is KTw-thesis. It follows that, if A is not a CI.0-thesis, tA is not a KTw-thesis, so also that TrtA is not a CI.0*Eq-thesis. Since t°A = TrtA and t°A is a function built on Def↠, this proves that every t°-translation of a CI.0-wff that is a CI.0*Eq-theorem is a CI.0-theorem. Since the converse proposition is proved in §2, their conjunction establishes the desired result. In the final section, it is proved that CI.0 is tableau-decidable, that ↠ is not a trivial operator and that ↠ enjoys the positive and negative properties required in §1 for context-dependent conditionals. Some final remarks suggest that studying the relations between CI.0 and systems of classical conditional logic may be a promising line of investigation.

The aim of the paper is to outline a treatment of cotenability inspired by a perspective which had strong roots in ancient logic since Chrysippus and was partially recovered in the XX Century by E. Nelson and the exponents of so-called connexive logic. Consequential implication is a modal reinterpretation of connexive implication which permits a simple reconstruction of Aristotle's square of conditionals, in which proper place is given not only to ordinary cotenability between A and B, represented by ¬, but to its “secondary” variant ¬ . After showing that logics of strict implication, of Stalnaker-Lewis conditionals and of relevant implication do not satisfy the intuitive properties required for cotenability , it is proved that such conditions are satisfied by consequential cotenability and by its secondary variant . The notions of strong cotenability and of bilateral cotenability are then introduced: the latter stands to standard cotenabilty as contingency stands to possibility, and in Section 9 it is shown to be a useful tool in the reconstruction of Boethius' theory of adjuncta

The paper begins by focusing the basic idea that Gestalt phenomena belong not only to the realm of perception but to the realm of inference. It is shown that Gestalt effects often occur both in counterfactual and in ampliative – i.e. inductive and abductive – reasoning. The main thesis of the paper is that the common feature of such forms of non-deductive reasoning is provided by a rational selection between incompatible conclusions, where rationality lies in the choice of the alternative which preserves the maximum of background information. It is also stressed a distinction between a weak and a strong notion of incompatibility. Such distinction may help in giving account of some alleged Gestalt phenomena which have been recognized in theory construction and theory change

The first section of the paper establishes the minimal properties of so-called consequential implication and shows that they are satisfied by at least two different operators of decreasing strength and \). Only the former has been analyzed in recent literature, so the paper focuses essentially on the latter. Both operators may be axiomatized in systems which are shown to be translatable into standard systems of normal modal logic. The central result of the paper is that the minimal consequential system for \, CI\, is definitionally equivalent to the deontic system KD and is intertranslatable with the minimal consequential system for \, CI. The main drawback ot the weaker operator \ is that it lacks unrestricted contraposition, but the final section of the paper argues that \ has some properties which make it a valuable alternative to \, turning out especially plausible as a basis for the definition of operators representing synthetic conditionals.

In the present work we provide a logical analysis of normatively determined and non-determined propositions. The normative status of these propositions depends on their relation with another proposition, here named reference proposition. Using a formal language that includes a monadic operator of obligation, we define eight dyadic operators that represent various notions of “being normatively (non-)determined”; then, we group them into two families, each forming an Aristotelian square of opposition. Finally, we show how the two resulting squares can be combined to form an Aristotelian cube of opposition.

The paper aims at developing the idea that the standard operator of noncontingency, usually symbolized by Δ, is a special case of a more general operator of dyadic noncontingency Δ(−, −). Such a notion may be modally defined in different ways. The one examined in the paper is __Δ__(B, A) = df ◊B ∧ (A ⥽ B ∨ A ⥽ ¬B), where ⥽ stands for strict implication. The operator of dyadic contingency __∇__(B, A) is defined as the negation of __Δ__(B, A). Possibility (◊A) may be then defined as __Δ__(A, A), necessity (□A) as __∇__(¬A, ¬A) and standard monadic noncontingency (__Δ__A) as __Δ__( \({\textsf{T}}\), A). In the second section it is proved that the deontic system KD is translationally equivalent to an axiomatic system of dyadic noncontingency named KDΔ 2, and that the minimal system KΔ of monadic contingency is a fragment of KDΔ 2. The last section suggests lines for further inquiries.

The first part of the paper contains a probabilistic axiomatic extension of the conditional system WV, here named WVPr. This system is extended with the axiom (Pr4): PrA = 1 ⊃ □A. The resulting system, named WVPr∗, is proved to be consistent and non-trivial, in the sense that it does not contain the wff (Triv): A ≡□A. Extending WVPr∗ with the so-called Generalized Stalnaker’s Thesis (GST) yields the (first) Lewis’s Triviality Result (LTriv) in the form (◊(A ∧ B) ∧◊(A ∧ ¬B)) ⊃ PrB|A = PrB. In §4 it is shown that a consequence of this theorem is the thesis (CT1): ¬A ⊃ (A > B ⊃ A ⥽ B). It is then proven that (CT1) subjoined to the conditional system WVPr∗ yields the collapse formula (Triv). The final result is that WVPr∗+(GST) is equivalent to WVPr∗+(Triv). In the last section a discussion is opened about the intuitive and philosophical plausibility of axiom (Pr4) and its role in the derivation of (Triv).

The first part of the paper aims at showing that the notion of an Aristotelian square may be seen as a special case of a variety of different more general notions: the one of a subAristotelian square, the one of a semiAristotelian square, the one of an Aristotelian cube, which is a construction made up of six semiAristotelian squares, two of which are Aristotelian. Furthermore, if the standard Aristotelian square is seen as a special ordered 4-tuple of formulas, there are 4-tuples describing rotations of the original square which are non-standard Aristotelian squares. The second part of the paper focuses on the notion of a composition of squares. After a discussion of possible alternative definitions, a privileged notion of composition of squares is identified, thus opening the road to introducing and discussing the wider notion of composition of cubes.

The objects called cubes of opposition have been presented in the literature in discordant ways. The aim of the paper is to offer a survey of such various kinds of cubes and evaluate their relation with an object, here called “Aristotelian cube”, which consists of two Aristotelian squares and four squares which are semiaristotelian, i.e. are such that their vertices are linked by some so-called Aristotelian relation. Two paradigm cases of Aristotelian squares are provided by propositions written in the language of the logic of consequential implication, whose distinctive feature is the validity of two formulas, A $$\rightarrow $$ → B $$\supset \lnot $$ ⊃ ¬ (A $$\rightarrow $$ → $$\lnot $$ ¬ B) and A $$\rightarrow $$ → B $$\supset \lnot $$ ⊃ ¬ ($$\lnot $$ ¬ A $$\rightarrow $$ → B), expressing two different forms of contrariety. Part of section 1 is devoted to define the notions of rotation and of r-Aristotelian square, i.e. a square resulting from some rotation of an Aristotelian square. In section 2 this notion is extended to the one of a r-Aristotelian cube, i.e. of a cube resulting from some rotation of some square of an Aristotelian cube. This notion is used in the sequel to analyze various cubes of oppositions which can be found in the literature: (1) the one used by W. Lenzen to reconstruct Caramuel’s Octagon; (2) the one used by D. Luzeaux to represent the implicative relation among S5-modalities; (3) the one introduced by D. Dubois to represent the relations between quantified propositions containing positive predicates and their negations; (4) the one called Moretti cube. None of such cubes is strictly speaking Aristotelian but each of them may be proved to be r-Aristotelian. Section 5 discusses the assertion that Dubois cube was anticipated in a paper published by Reichenbach in 1952. Actually Dubois’ construction was anticipated by the so-called Johnson–Keynes cube, while the Reichenbach cube, unlike Dubois cube, is an instance of an Aristotelian cube in the sense defined in this paper. The dominance of such notion is confirmed by J.F. Nilsson’s cube, representing relations between propositions with nested quantifiers, and also by a cube introduced by S. Read to treat quantifiers with existential import. A cube similar to Read’s cube, introduced by Chatti and Schang, is shown to be r-Aristotelian. In section 6 the author remarks that the logic of the formulas occurring in the cubes of Chatti–Schang and Read have the drawback of not satsfying the law of Identity. He then proposes a definition of non-standard quantifiers which satisfies Identity, are independent of existential assumptions and such that their interrelations are represented by an Aristotelian cube.

The paper proposes a first approach to systems whose language includes two primitives (>+ and >-) as symbols for factual and counterfactual conditionals which are explicit, i.e. that are stated jointly with the truth or falsity of the antecedent clause. In systems based on this language, here called 2-conditional, the standard corner operator may be defined by (Def>) A > B := (A >+ B)∨(A >- B), while in classical conditional systems one could introduce the two symbols for explicit conditionals by the definitions (Def>+) A >+ B := A∧(A>B) and (Def>-) A>- B := ¬A∧(A>B). Two 2-conditional systems, V² and VW², are axiomatized and proved to be definitionally equivalent to the monoconditional systems V and VW. A third system VWTr² is characterized by an axiom stating the transitivity of factual conditionals and is shown to be distinct from V², from VW² and from the 2-conditional version of Lewis’ well-known system VC, here named VC². The same may be said for a fourth system VW²◊ ±, based on an axiom inderivable in VC²: ◊(A >+ B) ⊃ ◊( ¬A >- ¬B). VC² contains what is here called a “semi-collapse” of the operator >+ and it is argued that it is inadequate as a logic for both factual and counterfactual conditionals. The last section shows that several different definitions of the corner operators in terms of >+ and >- may be introduced as an alternative to (Def>).

In the last two decades modal logic has undergone an explosive growth, to thepointthatacompletebibliographyofthisbranchoflogic,supposingthat someone were capable to compile it, would?ll itself a ponderous volume. What is impressive in the growth of modal logic has not been so much the quick accumulation of results but the richness of its thematic dev- opments. In the 1960s, when Kripke semantics gave new credibility to the logic of modalities? which was already known and appreciated in the Ancient and Medieval times? no one could have foreseen that in a short time modal logic would become a lively source of ideas and methods for analytical philosophers,historians of philosophy,linguists, epistemologists and computer scientists. The aim which oriented the composition of this book was not to write a new manual of modal logic buttoo?ertoeveryreader,evenwithnospeci?cbackground in logic, a conceptually linear path in the labyrinth of the current panorama of modal logic. The notion which in our opinion looked suitable to work as a compass in this enterprise was the notion of multimodality, or, more speci?cally, the basic idea of grounding systems on languages admitting more than one primitive modal operator.

This paper compares two logical conditionals which are strengthenings of the strict conditional and avoid the paradoxes of strict implication. The logics of both may be viewed as extensions of KT, and the two conditionals are interdefinable in KT. The implicative conditional requires that its antecedent and consequent be both contingent. The consequential conditional may be viewed as a weakening of the implicative conditional, insofar as it also admits the case in which the antecedent and the consequent are strictly equivalent (either both necessary or both impossible). The two conditionals share a number of properties, among them Transitivity, Contraposition, Aristotle’s Thesis, Weak Boethius’ Thesis and Aristotle’s Second Thesis. They also share some restricted principles such as Possibilistic Monotonicity, Possibilistic Simplification and Possibilistic Right Weakening. They differ in relation to Identity, which is validated by consequential implication, while the implicative conditional only validates the restricted principle of Possibilistic Identity. The relations between the two conditionals are represented by two Aristotelian cubes of opposition, one involving the contrariety between If A, then B and If A, then ¬B, according to Weak Boethius’ Thesis, and the other the contrariety between If A, then B and If ¬A, then B, according to Aristotle’s Second Thesis. We also explore the relations between the two logical conditionals and natural language conditionals, emphasizing the dependence of the latter on the context, and the need to distinguish natural language conditionals which may be viewed as consequential or implicative, on one side, and concessive and some other types of conditionals, on the other.

The present article is devoted to a logical inquiry on the notions of permanence and termination, which play a central role in many areas of temporal reasoning. In the first part, we introduce a bimodal framework to represent these notions and provide a syntactic and semantic comparison with a monomodal framework representing the notion of future necessity. In the second part, we focus on the problem of defining synonymous logical systems over the two frameworks; as an example, we provide an extended analysis of two systems, the monomodal K4 and the bimodal S4X. The third part of the article indicates possible developments of the proposed line of inquiry, such as finding a simple representation in the bimodal language of some interesting properties of time and identifying further pairs of synonymous systems.