We extend to the predicate frame a previous characterization of the maximal intermediate propositional constructive logics. This provides a technique to get maximal intermediate predicate constructive logics starting from suitable sets of classically valid predicate formulae we call maximal nonstandard predicate constructive logics. As an example of this technique, we exhibit two maximal intermediate predicate constructive logics, yet leaving open the problem of stating whether the two logics are distinct. Further properties of these logics will be also investigated.

This is the second part of a paper devoted to the study of the maximal intermediate propositional logics with the disjunction property , whose first part has appeared in this journal with the title “A method to single out maximal propositional logics with the disjunction property I”. In the first part we have explained the general results upon which a method to single out maximal constructive logics is based and have illustrated such a method by exhibiting the Kripke semantics of (...) maximal constructive logics extending the logic ST of Scott, for which, in turn, a semantical characterization in terms of Kripke frames has been given. In the present part we complete the illustration of the method of the first part, having in mind some aspects which might be interesting for a classification of the maximal constructive logics, and an application of the heuristic content of the method to detect the nonmaximality of apparently maximal constructive logics. Thus, on the one hand we introduce the logic AST , which is compared with ST and is seen as a logic “alternative” to it, in a sense which will be precisely explained. We provide a Kripke semantics for AST and show that there are maximal constructive logics which neither are extensions of ST nor are extensions of AST. Finally, we give a further application of the results of the first part by exhibiting the Kripke semantics of a maximal constructive logic extending AST. On the other hand, we compare the maximal constructive logics presented in both parts of the paper with a constructive logic introduced by Maksimova , which has been conjectured to be maximal by Chagrov and Zacharyashchev ; from this comparison a disproof of the conjecture arises. (shrink)

A partial solution to Ono’s problem P54 is given. Here Ono’s problem P54 is whether Harrop disjunction property is equivalent to disjunction property or not in intermediate predicate logics. As an application of this result it is shown that some intermediate predicate logics satisfy Harrop disjunction property.

This is the first part of a paper concerning intermediate propositional logics with the disjunction property which cannot be properly extended into logics of the same kind, and are therefore called maximal. To deal with these logics, we use a method based on the search of suitable nonstandard logics, which has an heuristic content and has allowed us to discover a wide family of logics, as well as to get their maximality proofs in a uniform way. The present part illustrates (...) infinitely many maximal logics with the disjunction property extending the well-known logic of Scott, and aims to provide a first picture of the method, sufficient for the reader who wish to achieve an overall understanding of it without entering into the further aspects developed in the second part. From this point of view, the latter will not be self-standing, but will be seen as a prosecution and a complement of the former, with the aim that the material presented in the whole paper can be used as a starting point for a classification of the subject. (shrink)

Using labelled formulae, a cut-free sequent calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic is presented, together with an easy cut-admissibility proof; both extend to cover, in a uniform fashion, all intermediate logics characterised by frames satisfying conditions expressible by one or more geometric implications. Each of these logics is embedded by the Gödel–McKinsey–Tarski translation into an extension of S4. Faithfulness of the embedding is proved in a simple and general way by constructive proof-theoretic methods, without appeal to semantics other than in the (...) explanation of the rules. (shrink)