There is a relatively recent trend in treating negation as a modal operator. One such reason is that doing so provides a uniform semantics for the negations of a wide variety of logics and arguably speaks to a longstanding challenge of Quine put to non-classical logics. One might be tempted to draw the conclusion that negation is a modal operator, a claim Francesco Berto, 761–793, 2015) defends at length in a recent paper. According to one such modal account, the negation (...) of a sentence is true at a world x just in case all the worlds at which the sentence is true are incompatible with x. Incompatibility is taken to be the key notion in the account, and what minimal properties a negation has comes down to which minimal conditions incompatibility satisfies. Our aims in this paper are twofold. First, we wish to point out problems for the modal account that make us question its tenability on a fundamental level. Second, in its place we propose an alternative, non-modal, account of negation as a contradictory-forming operator that we argue is superior to, and more natural than, the modal account. (shrink)

In this article we review several paraconsistent logics from different authors to ‘close the gaps’ between them. Since paraconsistent logics is a broad area of research, it is possible that equivalent paraconsistent logics have different names. What we meant is that we provide connections between the logics studied comparing their different semantical approaches for a near future be able to obtain missing semantical characterization of different logics. We are introducing the term RC-type logics to denote a class of logics that (...) extends Cω and satisfies the RC rule. (shrink)