Mares and Goldblatt, 163–187, 2006) provided an alternative frame semantics for two quantified extensions of the relevant logic R. In this paper, I show how to extend the Mares-Goldblatt frames to accommodate identity. Simpler frames are provided for two zero-order logics en route to the full logic in order to clarify what is needed for identity and substitution, as opposed to quantification. I close with a comparison of this work with the Fine-Mares models for relevant logics with identity and a (...) discussion of constant and variable domains. (shrink)

In 1988, Kit Fine published a semantic theory for quantified relevant logics. He referred to this theory as stratified semantics. While it has received some attention in the literature, 1–20, 1992; Mares & Goldblatt, Journal of Symbolic Logic 71, 163–187, 2006), stratified semantics has overall received much less attention than it deserves. There are two plausible reasons for this. First, the only two dedicated treatments of stratified semantics available are, 27–59, 1988; Mares, Studia Logica 51, 1–20, 1992), both of which (...) are quite dense and technically challenging. Second, there are a number of prima facie reasons to be worried about stratified semantics. The purpose of this paper is to revitalize research on stratified semantics. I will do so by giving a ‘user friendly’ presentation of the semantics, and by giving reasons to think that the prima facie reasons to be worried about it are too simplistic. (shrink)

There is a natural story about what logic is that sees it as tied up with two operations: a ‘throw things into a bag’ operation and a ‘closure’ operation. In a pair of recent papers, Jc Beall has fleshed out the account of logic this leaves us with in more detail. Using Beall’s exposition as a guide, this paper points out some problems with taking the second operation to be closure in the usual sense. After pointing out these problems, I (...) then turn to fixing them in a restricted case and modulo a few simplifying assumptions. In a followup paper, the simplifications and restrictions will be removed. (shrink)

We start by noting that the set-theoretic and semantic paradoxes are framed in terms of a definition or series of definitions. In the process of deriving paradoxes, these definitions are logically represented by a logical equivalence. We will firstly examine the role and usage of definitions in the derivation of paradoxes, both set-theoretic and semantic. We will see that this examination is important in determining how the paradoxes were created in the first place and indeed how they are to be (...) solved in a uniform way. There are three features that are special about these definitions used in the derivation of most of the above paradoxes. The first is the use of self-reference between the definiens and the definiendum, the second is the generality of the definiendum, and the third is the under-determination and over-determination of concepts that usually occur as a result of these definitions. We will examine the impact of these three features on the logical representation of definitions and show how this representation then leads to a uniform paradox solution using an appropriate logic that is both paraconsistent and paracomplete. However, it is the paracompleteness, exhibited through the rejection of the Law of Excluded Middle, together with the rejection of contraction principles, that enables the solution of the paradoxes to go through. We characterize definitions as involving syntactic identity and/or meaning identity. We point out that some paradoxes do not have explicit self-reference or circularity and some may not utilize the generality of the definiendum, but the general characterizations of definitions that we give will still apply. We also look beyond all this to paradoxes that rely on illicit definitions between objects that are essentially different to start with. (shrink)

I present a version of Kit Fine's stratified semantics for the logic RWQ and define a natural family of related structures called RW hyperdoctrines. After proving that RWQ is sound with respect to RW hyperdoctrines, we show how to construct, for each stratified model, a hyperdoctrine that verifies precisely the same sentences. Completeness of RWQ for hyperdoctrinal semantics then follows from completeness for stratified semantics, which is proved in an appendix. By examining the base category of RW hyperdoctrines, we find (...) reason to be worried about the ontology of stratified models. (shrink)