Elisángela Ramírez Cámara

It has been claimed that contracting connectivesContracting connective are conditionalsConditional. Our modest aim here is to show that the conditional-like features of a contracting connectiveContracting connective depend on the defining features of the conditionalConditional in a particular logic, yes, but they also depend on the underlying notion of logical consequence and the structure of the collection of truth values. More concretely, we will show that under P-consequenceP-consequence and suitable satisfiability conditions for the conditionalConditional, conjunctionsConjunction are contracting connectivesContracting connective for some logics without thereby being conditional-ish.

Many analyses of notion of _metainferences_ in the non-transitive logic ST have tackled the question of whether ST can be identified with classical logic. In this paper, we argue that the primary analyses are overly restrictive of the notion of metainference. We offer a more elegant and tractable semantics for the strict-tolerant hierarchy based on the three-valued function for the LP material conditional. This semantics can be shown to easily handle the introduction of _mixed_ inferences, _i.e._, inferences involving objects belonging to more than one (meta)inferential level and solves several other limitations of the ST hierarchies introduced by Barrio, Pailos, and Szmuc.

Alberic of Paris put forward an argument, ‘the most embarrassing of all twelfth-century arguments’ according to Christopher Martin, which shows that the connexive principles contradict some other logical principles that have become deeply entrenched in our most widely accepted logical theories. Building upon some of Everett Nelson’s ideas, we will show that the steps in Alberic of Paris’ argument that should be rejected are precisely the ones that presuppose the validity of schemas that are nowadays taken as some of the most trivial logical truths: (A∧B) → A and (A∧B) → B, i.e. Simplification.

In this paper, we evaluate Button’s claim that knot is a nasty connective. Knot’s nastiness is due to the fact that, when one extends the set \ with knot, the connective provides counterexamples to a number of classically valid operational rules in a sequent calculus proof system. We show that just as going non-transitive diminishes tonk’s nastiness, knot’s nastiness can also be reduced by dropping Reflexivity, a different structural rule. Since doing so restores all other rules in the system as validity-preserving, we are inclined to conclude that there, knot is not that nasty. However, since motivating non-reflexivity is harder than motivating non-transitivity, we also acknowledge that disagreement with our conclusion is possible.