José M. Méndez

Etude de l'extension par la negation semi-intuitionniste de la logique positive des propositions appelee logique C, developpee par A. Urquhart afin de definir une semantique relationnelle valable pour la logique des valeurs infinies de Lukasiewicz (Lw). Evitant les axiomes de contraction et de reduction propres a la logique classique de Dummett, l'A. propose une semantique de type Routley-Meyer pour le systeme d'Urquhart (CI) en tant que celle-la ne fournit que des theories consistantes pour la completude de celui-ci

Minimal Negation is defined within the basic positive relevance logic in the relational ternary semantics: B+. Thus, by defining a number of subminimal negations in the B+ context, principles of weak negation are shown to be isolable. Complete ternary semantics are offered for minimal negation in B+. Certain forms of reductio are conjectured to be undefinable (in ternary frames) without extending the positive logic. Complete semantics for such kinds of reductio in a properly extended positive logic are offered.

The logic TW+ is positive Ticket Entailment without the contraction axiom. Constructive negation is understood in the (minimal) intuitionistic sense but without paradoxes of relevance. It is shown how to introduce a constructive negation of this kind in positive logics at least as strong as TW+. Special attention is paid to the reductio axioms. Concluding remarks about relevance, modal and entailment logics are stated. Complete relational ternary semantics are provided for the logics introduced in this paper.

In his paper “Recent work in relevant logic”, Jago includes a section on Disjunctive Syllogism . The content of the section essentially consists of (a) a valuation of some work by Robles and Méndez on the topic as “not particularly interesting in itself”; (b) a statement establishing that “What would be interesting is to discover just how weak a relevant logic needs to be before disjunctive syllogism becomes inadmissible”. The main problem with this section of Jago’s paper on DS is that the author is unaware of the recent important results on the topic. I show that (1) the valuation in (a) is groundless and (2) the ill-formulated problem in (b) is solved in the recent literature on relevant logics.

In a standard sense, consistency and paraconsistency are understood as the absence of any contradiction and as the absence of the ECQ (‘E contradictione quodlibet’) rule, respectively. The concepts of weak consistency (in two different senses) as well as that of F -consistency have been defined by the authors. The aim of this paper is (a) to define alternative (to the standard one) concepts of paraconsistency in respect of the aforementioned notions of weak consistency and F -consistency; (b) to define the concept of strong paraconsistency; (c) to build up a series of strongly paraconsistent logics; (d) to define the basic constructive logic adequate to a rather weak sense of consistency. All logics treated in this paper are strongly paraconsistent. All of them are sound and complete in respect a modification of Routley and Meyer’s ternary relational semantics for relevant logics (no logic in this paper is relevant).

As is well known, the variable-sharing property (vsp) is, according to Anderson and Belnap, a necessary property of any relevant logic. In this paper, we shall consider two versions of the vsp, what we label the "weak vsp" (wvsp) and the "strong vsp" (svsp). In addition, the "no loose pieces property," a property related to the wvsp and the svsp, will be defined. Each one of these properties shall generally be characterized by means of a class of logical matrices. In this way, any logic verified by an actual matrix in one of these classes has the property the class generally represents. Particular matrices (and so, logics) in each class are provided

As is known, a logic S is paraconsistent if the rule ECQ (E contradictione quodlibet) is not a rule of S. Not less well known is the fact that Lewis’ modal logics are not paraconsistent. Actually, Lewis vindicates the validity of ECQ in a famous proof currently known as the “Lewis’ proof” or “Lewis’ argument.” This proof essentially leans on the Disjunctive Syllogism as a rule of inference. The aim of this paper is to define a series of paraconsistent logics included in S4 where the Disjunctive Syllogism is valid only as a rule of proof.

Łukasiewicz presented two different analyses of modal notions by means of many-valued logics: the linearly ordered systems Ł3,..., Open image in new window,..., \; the 4-valued logic Ł he defined in the last years of his career. Unfortunately, all these systems contain “Łukasiewicz type paradoxes”. On the other hand, Brady’s 4-valued logic BN4 is the basic 4-valued bilattice logic. The aim of this paper is to show that BN4 can be strengthened with modal operators following Łukasiewicz’s strategy for defining truth-functional modal logics. The systems we define lack “Łukasiewicz type paradoxes”. Following Brady, we endow them with Belnap–Dunn type bivalent semantics.

A system S has the “converse Ackermann property” if -> C is unprovable in S whenever C is a propositional variable. In this paper we define the fragments with the C.A.P. of some well-know propositional systems in the spectrum between the minimal and classical logic. In the first part we succesively study the implicative and positive fragments and the full calculi. In the second, we prove by a matrix method that each one of the systems has the C.A.P. Thus, we think the problem proposed in Anderson & Belnap § 8.12 has been solved.

A simple, bivalent semantics is defined for Łukasiewicz’s 4-valued modal logic Łm4. It is shown that according to this semantics, the essential presupposition underlying Łm4 is the following: A is a theorem iff A is true conforming to both the reductionist and possibilist theses defined as follows: rt: the value of modal formulas is equivalent to the value of their respective argument iff A is true, etc.); pt: everything is possible. This presupposition highlights and explains all oddities arising in Łm4

The aim of this paper is to introduce an alternative to Łukasiewicz’s 4-valued modal logic Ł. As it is known, Ł is afflicted by “Łukasiewicz type paradoxes”. The logic we define, PŁ4, is a strong paraconsistent and paracomplete 4-valued modal logic free from this type of paradoxes. PŁ4 is determined by the degree of truth-preserving consequence relation defined on the ordered set of values of a modification of the matrix MŁ characteristic for the logic Ł. On the other hand, PŁ4 is a rich logic in which a number of connectives can be defined. It also has a simple bivalent semantics of the Belnap–Dunn type.

Entendemos el concepto de “negación mínima” en el sentido clásico definido por Johansson. El propósito de este artículo es definir la lógica positiva mínima Bp+, y probar que la negación mínima puede introducirse en ella. Además, comentaremos algunas de las múltiples extensiones negativas de Bp+.“Minimal negation” is classically understood in a Johansson sense. The aim of this paper is to define the minimal positive logic Bp+ and prove that a minimal negation can be inroduced in it. In addition, some of the many possible negation extensions of Bp+ are commented

Łukasiewicz three-valued logic Ł3 is often understood as the set of all 3-valued valid formulas according to Łukasiewicz’s 3-valued matrices. Following Wojcicki, in addition, we shall consider two alternative interpretations of Ł3: “well-determined” Ł3a and “truth-preserving” Ł3b defined by two different consequence relations on the 3-valued matrices. The aim of this paper is to provide (by using Dunn semantics) dual equivalent two-valued under-determined and over-determined interpretations for Ł3, Ł3a and Ł3b. The logic Ł3 is axiomatized as an extension of Routley and Meyer’s basic positive logic following Brady’s strategy for axiomatizing many-valued logics by employing two-valued under-determined or over-determined interpretations. Finally, it is proved that “well determined” Łukasiewicz logics are paraconsistent

A prepositional logic S has the Converse Ackermann Property (CAP) if (AB)C is unprovable in S when C does not contain . In A Routley-Meyer semantics for Converse Ackermann Property (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16 (1987), pp. 65–76) I showed how to derive positive logical systems with the CAP. There I conjectured that each of these positive systems were compatible with a so-called semiclassical negation. In the present paper I prove that this conjecture was right. Relational Routley-Meyer type semantics are provided for each one of the resulting systems (the positive systems plus the semiclassical negation).