In Jaśkowski’s model of discussion, discussive connectives represent certain interactions that can hold between debaters. However, it is not possible within the model for participants to use explicit modal operators. In the paper we present a modal extension of the discussive logic $\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$ that formally corresponds to an extended version of Jaśkowski’s model of discussion that permits such a use. This logic is denoted by $\textbf{m}\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$. We present philosophical motivations for the formulation of this logic. We also give syntactic characterizations (...) of the logic and propose a comparison with certain other modal systems. In particular, we prove that $\textbf{m}\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$ is neither normal nor regular. On the basis of the axiomatization of $\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$, we give an axiomatization of $\textbf{m}\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$. We also give another axiomatization which is not based on the axiomatization of $\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$. Furthermore, we give a natural Kripke-style semantics for $\textbf{m}\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$ and prove the respective adequacy theorems. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to give a general background and a uniform treatment of several notions of mutual interpretability. Sentential calculi are treated as preorders and logical invariants of adjoint situations, i.e. Galois connections are investigated. The class of all sentential calculi is treated as a quasiordered class.Some methods of the axiomatization of the M-counterparts of modal systems are based on particular adjoints. Also, invariants concerning adjoints for calculi with implication are pointed out. Finally, the notion of interpretability (...) is generalized so that it may be applied to closure spaces as well. (shrink)

Jaśkowski's discussive (discursive) logic D2 is historically one of the first paraconsistent logics, i.e., logics which 'tolerate' contradictions. Following Jaśkowski's idea to define his discussive logic by means of the modal logic S5 via special translation functions between discussive and modal languages, and supporting at the same time the tradition of paracomplete logics being the counterpart of paraconsistent ones, we present a paracomplete discussive logic D2p.

In the paper we analyse the problem of axiomatizing the minimal variant of discussive logic denoted as $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0. Our aim is to give its axiomatization that would correspond to a known axiomatization of the original discussive logic $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2. The considered system is minimal in a class of discussive logics. It is defined similarly, as Jaśkowski’s logic $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2 but with the help of the deontic normal logic (...) $$\textbf{D}$$ D. Although we focus on the smallest discussive logic and its correspondence to $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2, we analyse to some extent also its formal aspects, in particular its behaviour with respect to rules that hold for classical logic. In the paper we propose a deductive system for the above recalled discussive logic. While formulating this system, we apply a method of Newton da Costa and Lech Dubikajtis—a modified version of Jerzy Kotas’s method used to axiomatize $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2. Basically the difference manifests in the result—in the case of da Costa and Dubikajtis, the resulting axiomatization is pure modus ponens-style. In the case of $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0, we have to use some rules, but they are mostly needed to express some aspects of positive logic. $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0 understood as a set of theses is contained in $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2. Additionally, any non-trivial discussive logic expressed by means of Jaśkowski’s model of discussion, applied to any regular modal logic of discussion, contains $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0. (shrink)

I provide an interpretation of Wittgenstein's much criticized remarks on Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem in the light of paraconsistent arithmetics: in taking Gödel's proof as a paradoxical derivation, Wittgenstein was right, given his deliberate rejection of the standard distinction between theory and metatheory. The reasoning behind the proof of the truth of the Gödel sentence is then performed within the formal system itself, which turns out to be inconsistent. I show that the models of paraconsistent arithmetics (obtained via the Meyer-Mortensen (...) collapsing filter on the standard model) match with many intuitions underlying Wittgensteins philosophy of mathematics, such as its strict finitism and the insistence on the decidability of any meaningful mathematical question. (shrink)

We expose the main ideas, concepts and results about Jaśkowski's discussive logic, and apply that logic to the concept of pragmatic truth and to the Dalla Chiara-di Francia view of the foundations of physics.

Chakraborty and Banerjee have introduced a rough consequence logic based on the modal logic S5. This paper shows that rough consequence logics, with many of the same properties, can be based on modal logics as weak as K, with a simpler formulation than that of Chakraborty and Banerjee. Also provided are decision procedures for the rough consequence logics and equivalences and independence relations between various systems S and the rough consequence logics, based on them. It also shows that each logic, (...) based on such an S, is theorem equivalent, but not necessarily equivalent, to the modal logic M-S. The paper also shows that rough consequence logic, which was designed to handle rough equality, is somewhat limited for that purpose. (shrink)

Jaśkowski’s discussive logic D2 was formulated with the help of the modal logic S5 as follows (see [7, 8]): \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A \in {D_{2}}}$$\end{document} iff \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\ulcorner\diamond{{A}^{\bullet}}\urcorner \in {\rm S}5}$$\end{document}, where (–)• is a translation of discussive formulae from Ford into the modal language. We say that a modal logic L defines D2 iff \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\rm D}_{2} = (...) \{A \in {\rm For^{\rm d}} : \ulcorner\diamond{{A}^{\bullet}}\urcorner \in {\it L}\}}$$\end{document}. In [14] and [10] were respectively presented the weakest normal and the weakest regular logic which (†): have the same theses beginning with ‘\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\diamond}$$\end{document}’ as S5. Of course, all logics fulfilling the above condition, define D2. In [10] it was prowed that in the cases of logics closed under congruence the following holds: defining D2 is equivalent to having the property (†). In this paper we show that this equivalence holds also for all modal logics which are closed under replacement of tautological equivalents (rte-logics).We give a general method which, for any class of modal logics determined by a set of joint axioms and rules, generates in the given class the weakest logic having the property (†). Thus, for the class of all modal logics we obtain the weakest modal logic which owns this property. On the other hand, applying the method to various classes of modal logics: rte-logics, congruential, monotonic, regular and normal, we obtain the weakest in a given class logic defining D2. (shrink)

In [8] Jakowski defined by means of an appropriate interpretation a paraconsistent calculusD 2 . In [9] J. Kotas showed thatD 2 is equivalent to the calculusM(S5) whose theses are exactly all formulasa such thatMa is a thesis ofS5. The papers [11], [7], [3], and [4] showed that interesting paraconsistent calculi could be obtained using modal systems other thanS5 and modalities other thanM. This paper generalises the above work. LetA be an arbitrary modality (i.e. string ofM''s,L''s and negation signs). Then (...) theA-extension of a set of formulasX is {¦A X}}. Various properties ofA-extensions of normal modal systems are examined, including a problem of their axiomatizability. (shrink)