Guillermo Badia

The problems of logical translation of axiomatizations and the choice of primitive operators have surfaced several times over the years. An early issue was raised by H. Hiz∙ in the 1950s on the incompleteness of translated calculi. Further pertinent work, some of it touched on here, was done in the 1970s by W. Frank and S. Shapiro, as well as by others in subsequent decades. As we shall see, overlooking such possibilities has led to incorrect claims of completeness being made (e.g. by J. L. Bell and A. B. Slomson as well as J. N. Crossley) for axiomatizations of classical predicate logic obtained by translation from axiomatizations suited to differently chosen logical primitives. In this note we begin by discussing some problematic aspects of an early article by W. Frank on the difficulties of obtaining completeness theorems for translated calculi. Shapiro had established the incompleteness of Crossley’s axiomatization by exhibiting a propositional tautology that was not provable. In contrast, to deal with Bell and Slomson’s system which is complete for propositional tautologies, we go on to show that taking a formal system for classical predicate calculus with the primitive ∃, setting ∀xφ(x) =def ¬∃x¬φ(x), and writing down a set of axioms and rules complete for the calculus with ∀ instead of ∃ as primitive, does not guarantee completeness of the resulting system. In particular, instances of the valid schema ∃xφ(x) → ∃x¬¬φ(x) are not provable, which is analogous to what occurs in modal logic with □ and ⋄. © 2023 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

A logic for inconsistent mathematics must be strong enough to support reasoning in proofs, while weak enough to avoid paradoxes. We present a substructural logic intended to meet the needs of a working dialetheic mathematician—specifically, by adding a de Morgan negation to light linear logic, and extending the logic with a relevant conditional. The logic satisfies a deduction theorem. Soundness and completeness is established, showing in particular that contraction is invalidated. This opens the way for a robust naive set theory; we conclude by showing how the set theory provides a foundation for induction.

Many-valued logics, in general, and real-valued logics, in particular, usually focus on a notion of consequence based on preservation of full truth, typically represented by the value $1$ in the semantics given in the real unit interval $[0,1]$. In a recent paper [Foundations of Reasoning with Uncertainty via Real-valued Logics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121(21): e2309905121, 2024], Ronald Fagin, Ryan Riegel, and Alexander Gray have introduced a new paradigm that allows to deal with inferences in propositional real-valued logics based on a rich class of sentences, multi-dimensional sentences, that talk about combinations of any possible truth values of real-valued formulas. They have proved a strong completeness result that allows one to derive exactly what information can be inferred about the combinations of truth values of a collection of formulas given information about the combinations of truth values of a finite number of other collections of formulas. In this paper, we extend that work to the first-order (as well as modal) logic of multi-dimensional sentences. We give a parameterized axiomatic system that covers any reasonable logic and prove a corresponding completeness theorem, first assuming that the structures are defined over a fixed domain, and later for the logics of varying domains. As a by-product, we also obtain a zero-one law for finitely-valued versions of these logics. Since several first-order real-valued logics are known not to have recursive axiomatizations but only infinitary ones, our system is by force akin to infinitary systems.

There are known characterisations of several fragments of hybrid logic by means of invariance under bisimulations of some kind. The fragments include $\{\mathord {\downarrow }, \mathord {@}\}$ with or without nominals (Areces, Blackburn, Marx), $\mathord {@}$ with or without nominals (ten Cate), and $\mathord {\downarrow }$ without nominals (Hodkinson, Tahiri). Some pairs of these characterisations, however, are incompatible with one another. For other fragments of hybrid logic no such characterisations were known so far. We prove a generic bisimulation characterisation theorem for all standard fragments of hybrid logic, in particular for the case with $\mathord {\downarrow }$ and nominals, left open by Hodkinson and Tahiri. Our characterisation is built on a common base and for each feature extension adds a specific condition, so it is modular in an engineering sense.

This paper studies which truth-values are most likely to be taken on finite models by arbitrary sentences of a many-valued predicate logic. The classical zero-one law (independently proved by Fagin and Glebskiĭ et al.) states that every sentence in a purely relational language is almost surely false or almost surely true, meaning that the probability that the formula is true in a randomly chosen finite structures of cardinal n is asymptotically $0$ or $1$ as n grows to infinity. We obtain generalizations of this result for any logic with values in a finite lattice-ordered algebra, and for some infinitely valued logics, including Łukasiewicz logic. The finitely valued case is reduced to the classical one through a uniform translation and Oberschelp’s generalization of the zero-one law. Moreover, it is shown that the complexity of determining the almost sure value of a given sentence is PSPACE-complete (generalizing Grandjean’s result for the classical case), and for some logics we describe completely the set of truth-values that can be taken by sentences almost surely.

We generalize the notion of consequence relation standard in abstract treatments of logic to accommodate intuitions of relevance. The guiding idea follows the use criterion, according to which in order for some premises to have some conclusion(s) as consequence(s), the premises must each be used in some way to obtain the conclusion(s). This relevance intuition turns out to require not just a failure of monotonicity, but also a move to considering consequence relations as obtaining between multisets. We motivate and state basic definitions of relevant consequence relations, both in single conclusion (asymmetric) and multiple conclusion (symmetric) settings, as well as derivations and theories, guided by the use intuitions, and prove a number of results indicating that the definitions capture the desired results (at least in many cases).

Lindström’s theorem obviously fails as a characterization of first-order logic without identity ( $\mathcal {L}_{\omega \omega }^{-} $ ). In this note, we provide a fix: we show that $\mathcal {L}_{\omega \omega }^{-} $ is a maximal abstract logic satisfying a weak form of the isomorphism property (suitable for identity-free languages and studied in [11]), the Löwenheim–Skolem property, and compactness. Furthermore, we show that compactness can be replaced by being recursively enumerable for validity under certain conditions. In the proofs, we use a form of strong upwards Löwenheim–Skolem theorem not available in the framework with identity.

In this article we show that bi-intuitionistic predicate logic lacks the Craig Interpolation Property. We proceed by adapting the counterexample given by Mints, Olkhovikov and Urquhart for intuitionistic predicate logic with constant domains [13]. More precisely, we show that there is a valid implication $\phi \rightarrow \psi $ with no interpolant. Importantly, this result does not contradict the unfortunately named ‘Craig interpolation’ theorem established by Rauszer in [24] since that article is about the property more correctly named ‘deductive interpolation’ (see Galatos, Jipsen, Kowalski and Ono’s use of this term in [5]) for global consequence. Given that the deduction theorem fails for bi-intuitionistic logic with global consequence, the two formulations of the property are not equivalent.

This paper is a step toward showing what is achievable using non-classical metatheory—particularly, a substructural paraconsistent framework. What standard results, or analogues thereof, from the classical metatheory of first order logic can be obtained? We reconstruct some of the originals proofs for Completeness, Löwenheim-Skolem and Compactness theorems in the context of a substructural logic with the naive comprehension schema. The main result is that paraconsistent metatheory can ‘re-capture’ versions of standard theorems, given suitable restrictions and background assumptions; but the shift to non-classical logic may recast the meanings of these apparently ‘absolute’ theorems.

Stemming from the works of Petr Hájek on mathematical fuzzy logic, graded model theory has been developed by several authors in the last two decades as an extension of classical model theory that studies the semantics of many-valued predicate logics. In this paper we take the first steps towards an abstract formulation of this model theory. We give a general notion of abstract logic based on many-valued models and prove six Lindström-style characterizations of maximality of first-order logics in terms of metalogical properties such as compactness, abstract completeness, the Löwenheim–Skolem property, the Tarski union property, and the Robinson property, among others. As necessary technical restrictions, we assume that the models are valued on finite MTL-chains and the language has a constant for each truth-value.

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.

This paper is devoted to the problem of existence of saturated models for first-order many-valued logics. We consider a general notion of type as pairs of sets of formulas in one free variable that express properties that an element of a model should, respectively, satisfy and falsify. By means of an elementary chains construction, we prove that each model can be elementarily extended to a $\kappa $-saturated model, i.e. a model where as many types as possible are realized. In order to prove this theorem we obtain, as by-products, some results on tableaux (understood as pairs of sets of formulas) and their consistency and satisfiability and a generalization of the Tarski–Vaught theorem on unions of elementary chains. Finally, we provide a structural characterization of $\kappa $-saturation in terms of the completion of a diagram representing a certain configuration of models and mappings.

This paper is a contribution to graded model theory, in the context of mathematical fuzzy logic. We study characterizations of classes of graded structures in terms of the syntactic form of their first-order axiomatization. We focus on classes given by universal and universal-existential sentences. In particular, we prove two amalgamation results using the technique of diagrams in the setting of structures valued on a finite MTL-algebra, from which analogues of the Łoś–Tarski and the Chang–Łoś–Suszko preservation theorems follow.

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.

Analogues of Scott's isomorphism theorem, Karp's theorem as well as results on lack of compactness and strong completeness are established for infinitary propositional relevant logics. An "interpolation theorem" for the infinitary quantificational boolean logic L-infinity omega. holds. This yields a preservation result characterizing the expressive power of infinitary relevant languages with absurdity using the model-theoretic relation of relevant directed bisimulation as well as a Beth definability property.