In [3] I argued for a particular kind of semantics for subjunctive conditionals. The arguments were based upon some linguistic considerations of the general character of what we mean when we say such and such. I urged that a semantics for subjunctive conditionals ought to provide a distinct representation of the subjunctive mood of a sentence, and should take seriously the fact that subjunctive conditionals admit distinctions of tense. The envisaged semantics took the subjunctive conditional to be about occasions, and (...) the central problem discussed was, accordingly, how to represent what must count as the same occasion in spite of whatever changes were required to make the antecedent of the conditional true. (shrink)

This paper offers a semantic study in multi-relational semantics of quantified N-Monotonic modal logics with varying domains with and without the identity symbol. We identify conditions on frames to characterise Barcan and Ghilardi schemata and present some related completeness results. The characterisation of Barcan schemata in multi-relational frames with varying domains shows the independence of BF and CBF from well-known propositional modal schemata, an independence that does not hold with constant domains. This fact was firstly suggested for classical modal systems (...) by Stolpe, 557–575, 2003), but unfortunately that work used only models and not frames. (shrink)

Following a result by De Rijke for modal logic, it is shown that the basic weak entailment model-theoretic language with absurdity is the maximal model-theoretic language having the finite occurrence property, preservation under relevant directed bisimulations and the finite depth property. This can be seen as a generalized preservation theorem characterizing propositional weak entailment formulas among formulas of other model-theoretic languages.

The system R, or more precisely the pure implicational fragment R›, is considered by the relevance logicians as the most important. The another central system of relevance logic has been the logic E of entailment that was supposed to capture strict relevant implication. The next system of relevance logic is RM or R-mingle. The question is whether adding mingle axiom to R› yields the pure implicational fragment RM› of the system? As concerns the weak systems there are at least two (...) approaches to the problem. First of all, it is possible to restrict a validity of some theorems. In another approach we can investigate even weaker logics which have no theorems and are characterized only by rules of deducibility. (shrink)

In this paper, I will develop a set of boulesic-doxastic tableau systems and prove that they are sound and complete. Boulesic-doxastic logic consists of two main parts: a boulesic part and a doxastic part. By ‘boulesic logic’ I mean ‘the logic of the will’, and by ‘doxastic logic’ I mean ‘the logic of belief’. The first part deals with ‘boulesic’ concepts, expressions, sentences, arguments and theorems. I will concentrate on two types of boulesic expression: ‘individual x wants it to be (...) the case that’ and ‘individual x accepts that it is the case that’. The second part deals with ‘doxastic’ concepts, expressions, sentences, arguments and theorems. I will concentrate on two types of doxastic expression: ‘individual x believes that’ and ‘it is imaginable to individual x that’. Boulesic-doxastic logic investigates how these concepts are related to each other. Boulesic logic is a new kind of logic. Doxastic logic has been around for a while, but the approach to this branch of logic in this paper is new. Each system is combined with modal logic with two kinds of modal operators for historical and absolute necessity and predicate logic with necessary identity and ‘possibilist’ quantifiers. I use a kind of possible world semantics to describe the systems semantically. I also sketch out how our basic language can be extended with propositional quantifiers. All the systems developed in this paper are new. (shrink)

Is it possible to give a justification of our own practice of deductive inference? The purpose of this paper is to explain what such a justification might consist in and what its purpose could be. On the conception that we are going to pursue, to give a justification for a deductive practice means to explain in terms of an intuitively satisfactory notion of validity why the inferences that conform to the practice coincide with the valid ones. That is, a justification (...) should provide an analysis of the notion of validity and show that the inferences that conform to the practice are just the ones that are valid. Moreover, a complete justification should also explain the purpose, or point, of our inferential practice. We are first going to discuss the objection that any justification of our deductive practice must use deduction and therefore be circular. Then we will consider a particular model of justificatory explanation, building on Georg Kreisel’s concept of informal rigour. Finally, in the main part of the paper, we will discuss three ideas for defining the notion of validity: (i) the classical conception according to which the notion of (bivalent) truth is taken as basic and validity is defined in terms of the preservation of truth; (ii) the constructivist idea of starting instead with the notion of (a canonical) proof (or verification) and define validity in terms of this notion; (iii) the idea of taking the notions of rational acceptance and rejection as given and define an argument to be valid just in case it is irrational to simultaneously accept its premises and reject its conclusion (or conclusions, if we allow for multiple conclusions). Building on work by Dana Scott, we show that the last conception may be viewed as being, in a certain sense, equivalent to the first one. Finally, we discuss the so-called paradox of inference and the informativeness of deductive arguments. (shrink)

This book is intended to serve as an advanced text and reference work on modal logic, a subject of growing importance which has applications to philosophy and linguistics. Although it is based mainly on research which I carried out during the years 1969-1973, it also includes some related results obtained by other workers in the field. Parts 0, 1 and 2, can be used as the basis of a one year graduate course in modal logic. The material which they contain (...) has been taught in such courses at Stanford since 1970. The remaining parts of the book contain more than enough material for a second course in modal logic. The exercises supplement the text and are usually difficult. I wish to thank Stanford University and Bar-Han University for making it possible for me to continue and finish this work, and A. Ungar for correcting the typescript. Bar-Ilan University, Israel Dov M. GABBA Y PART 0 AN INTRODUCTION TO GENERAL INTENSIONAL LOGICS CHAPTER 0 CONSEQUENCE RELATIONS Motivation We introduce the notions of a consequence relation and of a semantics. We show that every consequence relation is complete for a canonical semantics. We define the notion of one semantics being Dian in another and study the basic properties of this notion. The concepts of this chapter are generalizations of the various notions of logical system and possible world semantics found in the literature. (shrink)