Standard deontic logic (SDL) is defined on the basis of possible world semantics and is a logic of alethic-deontic modalities rather than deontic modalities alone. The interpretation of the concepts of obligation and permission comes down exclusively to the logical value that a sentence adopts for the accessible deontic alternatives. Here, we set forth a different approach, this being a logic which additionally takes into consideration whether sentences stand in relation to the normative system or to the system of values (...) under which we predicate the deontic qualifications. By taking this aspect into account, we arrive at a logical system which preserves laws proper to a deontic logic but where the standard paradoxes of deontic logic do not arise. It is a logic of strictly-deontic modalities DR. (shrink)

In this paper we present a characterization of hyper-connexivity by means of a relating semantics for Boolean connexive logics. We also show that the minimal Boolean connexive logic is Abelardian, strongly consistent, Kapsner strong and antiparadox. We give an example showing that the minimal Boolean connexive logic is not simplificative. This shows that the minimal Boolean connexive logic is not totally connexive.

Here, we discuss historical, philosophical and technical problems associated with relating logic and relating semantics. To do so, we proceed in three steps. First, Section 1 is devoted to providing an introduction to both relating logic and relating semantics. Second, we address the history of relating semantics and some of the main research directions and their philosophical applications. Third, we discuss some technical problems related to relating semantics, particularly whether the direct incorporation of the relation into the language of relating (...) logic is needed. The starting point for our considerations presented here is the 1st Workshop On Relating Logic and the selected papers for this issue. (shrink)

Seen from the point of view of evaluation conditions, a usual way to obtain a connexive logic is to take a well-known negation, for example, Boolean negation or de Morgan negation, and then assign special properties to the conditional to validate Aristotle’s and Boethius’ Theses. Nonetheless, another theoretical possibility is to have the extensional or the material conditional and then assign special properties to the negation to validate the theses. In this paper we examine that possibility, not sufficiently explored in (...) the connexive literature yet.We offer a characterization of connexive negation disentangled from the cancellation account of negation, a previous attempt to define connexivity on top of a distinctive negation. We also discuss an ancient view on connexive logics, according to which a valid implication is one where the negation of the consequent is incompatible with the antecedent, and discuss the role of our idea of connexive negation for this kind of view. (shrink)

Francez has suggested that connexivity can be predicated of connectives other than the conditional, in particular conjunction and disjunction. Since connexivity is not any connection between antecedents and consequents—there might be other connections among them, such as relevance—, my question here is whether Francez’s conjunction and disjunction can properly be called ‘connexive’. I analyze three ways in which those connectives may somehow inherit connexivity from the conditional by standing in certain relations to it. I will show that Francez’s connectives fail (...) all these three ways, and that even other connectives obtained by following more closely Wansing’s method to get a connexive conditional, fail to be connexive as well. (shrink)

In this paper we discuss whether the relation between formulas in the relating model can be directly introduced into the language of relating logic, and present some stances on that problem. Other questions in the vicinity, such as what kind of functor would be the incorporated relation, or whether the direct incorporation of the relation into the language of relating logic is really needed, will also be addressed.

In the paper a generalised method for obtaining an adequate axiomatic system for any relating logic expressed in the language with Boolean connectives and relating implication, determined by the limited positive relational properties is studied. The method of defining axiomatic systems for logics of a given type is called an algorithm since the analysis allows for any logic determined by the limited positive relational properties to define the adequate axiomatic system automatically, step-by-step. We prove in the paper that the algorithm (...) really works and we show how it can be applied to BLRI. (shrink)

In the paper, we examine tableau systems for R. Epstein’s logics of content relationship: D (Dependence Logic), DD (Dual Dependence Logic), Eq (Logic of Equality of Content), S (Symmetric Relatedness Logic) and R (Nonsymmetric Relatedness Logic) (cf. Epstein in Philos Stud 36:137–173, 1979, Epstein in Rep. Math. Logic 21:19–34, 1987, Klonowski in Logic Log Philos 30(4):579–629, 2021, Krajewski in J Non Class Logic 8:7–33, 1991). The first tableau systems for those logics were defined by Carnielli. However, his approach has some (...) limitations, for example, it requires a proof of functional completeness and axiomatization. Notwithstanding the first two constraints, it does not include all Epstein logics, e.g., logic Eq. Unlike Carnielli’s approach, here we use set-assignment semantics to determine those logics. Since syntax and semantics of a given logic usually determine a minimal syntax and structure of a tableau system for the logic along with other properties, we propose a uniform tableau framework for the logics determined by set-assignment semantics. What distinguishes our tableau systems is that they combine the features of tableaux for propositional logics and syllogistic logics when the problem of content of propositions is analysed in tableau proofs. To denote the content of propositions in the proofs, we use generalised labels (see Jarmużek and Goré in Landscapes in Logic, College Publications, London, 2021). (shrink)

We present here some Boolean connexive logics (BCLs) that are intended to be connexive counterparts of selected Epstein’s content relationship logics (CRLs). The main motivation for analyzing such logics is to explain the notion of connexivity by means of the notion of content relationship. The article consists of two parts. In the first one, we focus on the syntactic analysis by means of axiomatic systems. The starting point for our syntactic considerations will be the smallest BCL and the smallest CRL. (...) In the first part, we also identify axioms of Epstein’s logics that, together with the connexive principles, lead to contradiction. Moreover, we present some principles that will be equivalent to the connexive theses, but not to the content connexive theses we will propose. In the second part, we focus on the semantic analysis provided by relating- and set-assignment models. We define sound and complete relating semantics for all tested systems. We also indicate alternative relating models for the smallest BCL, which are not alternative models of the connexive counterparts of the considered CRLs. We provide a set-assignment semantics for some BCLs, giving thus a natural formalization of the content relationship understood either as content sharing or as content inclusion. (shrink)

In this paper, we introduce a variant of second-order propositional modal logic interpreted on general (or Henkin) frames, \(SOPML^{\mathcal {H}}\), and present a decidable fragment of this logic, \(SOPML^{\mathcal {H}}_{dec}\), that preserves important expressive capabilities of \(SOPML^{\mathcal {H}}\). \(SOPML^{\mathcal {H}}_{dec}\) is defined as a _modal loosely guarded fragment_ of \(SOPML^{\mathcal {H}}\). We demonstrate the expressive power of \(SOPML^{\mathcal {H}}_{dec}\) using examples in which modal operators obtain (a) the epistemic interpretation, (b) the dynamic interpretation. \(SOPML^{\mathcal {H}}_{dec}\) partially satisfies the principle of (...) non-Fregean logic: two different _atomic_ propositions with the same truth value can have different contents. In \(SOPML^{\mathcal {H}}_{dec}\), we also define _relating connectives_ and show that the _weak Boethius’ Thesis_ built using these connectives is a valid formula of \(SOPML^{\mathcal {H}}_{dec}\). (shrink)

In this paper, we present the history of and the research directions in relating logic. For this purpose we will describe Epstein's Programme, which postulates accounting for the content of sentences in logical research. We will focus on analysing the content relationship and Epstein's logics that are based on it, which are special cases of relating logic. Moreover, the set-assignment semantics will be discussed. Next, the Torunian Programme of Relating Semantics will be presented; this programme explores the various non-logical relationships (...) in logical research, including those which are content-related. We will present a general description of relating logic and semantics as well as the most prominent issues regarding the Torunian Programme, including some of its special cases and the results achieved to date. -/- . (shrink)

In the article we investigate three classes of extended Boolean Connexive Logics. Two of them are extensions of Modal and non-Modal Boolean Connexive Logics with a property of closure under an arbitrary number of negations. The remaining one is an extension of Modal Boolean Connexive Logic with a property of closure under the function of demodalization. In our work we provide a formal presentation of mentioned properties and axiom schemata that allow us to incorporate them into Hilbert-style calculi. The presented (...) axiomatic systems are provided with proofs of soundness, completeness and decidability. The properties of closure under negation and demodalization are motivated by the syncategorematic view on the connectives of negation and modalities, which is discussed in the paper. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to present a system of modal connexive logic based on a situation semantics. In general, modal connexive logics are extensions of standard modal logics that incorporate Aristotle’s and Boethius’ theses, that is the thesis that a sentence cannot imply its negation and the thesis that a sentence cannot imply a pair of contradictory sentences. A key problem in devising a connexive logic is to come up with a system that is both sufficiently strong to (...) fulfill some specific connexive theses and sufficiently well-motivated from a semantical point of view. The approach proposed here tries to address this problem by defining an appropriate connexive relation in terms of more basic notions. The result is a well-motivated system of modal connexive logic that nicely fits in both with the traditional ideas concerning the connexive conditional and with the current developments in connexive logic. (shrink)

Here, we discuss logical, philosophical and technical problems associated to relating logic and relating semantics. To do so, we proceed in three steps. The first step is devoted to providing an introduction to both relating logic and relating semantics. We discuss this problem on the example of different languages. Second, we address some of the main research directions and their philosophical applications to non-classical logics, particularly to connexive logics. Third, we discuss some technical problems related to relating semantics, and its (...) application to philosophy of science, language and pragmatics. (shrink)

Let f(1)=2, f(2)=4, and let f(n+1)=f(n)! for every integer n≥2. Edmund Landau's conjecture states that the set P(n^2+1) of primes of the form n^2+1 is infinite. Landau's conjecture implies the following unproven statement Φ: card(P(n^2+1))<ω ⇒ P(n^2+1)⊆[2,f(7)]. Let B denote the system of equations: {x_j!=x_k: i,k∈{1,...,9}}∪{x_i⋅x_j=x_k: i,j,k∈{1,...,9}}. The system of equations {x_1!=x_1, x_1 \cdot x_1=x_2, x_2!=x_3, x_3!=x_4, x_4!=x_5, x_5!=x_6, x_6!=x_7, x_7!=x_8, x_8!=x_9} has exactly two solutions in positive integers x_1,...,x_9, namely (1,...,1) and (f(1),...,f(9)). No known system S⊆B with a finite (...) number of solutions in positive integers x_1,...,x_9 has a solution (x_1,...,x_9)∈(N\{0})^9 satisfying max(x_1,...,x_9)>f(9). For every known system S⊆B, if the finiteness/infiniteness of the set {(x_1,...,x_9)∈(N\{0})^9: (x_1,...,x_9) solves S} is unknown, then the statement ∃ x_1,...,x_9∈N\{0} ((x_1,...,x_9) solves S)∧(max(x_1,...,x_9)>f(9)) remains unproven. Let Λ denote the statement: if the system of equations {x_2!=x_3, x_3!=x_4, x_5!=x_6, x_8!=x_9, x_1 \cdot x_1=x_2, x_3 \cdot x_5=x_6, x_4 \cdot x_8=x_9, x_5 \cdot x_7=x_8} has at most finitely many solutions in positive integers x_1,...,x_9, then each such solution (x_1,...,x_9) satisfies x_1,...,x_9≤f(9). The statement Λ is equivalent to the statement Φ. It heuristically justifies the statement Φ . This justification does not yield the finiteness/infiniteness of P(n^2+1). We present a new heuristic argument for the infiniteness of P(n^2+1), which is not based on the statement Φ. Algorithms always terminate. We explain the distinction between existing algorithms (i.e. algorithms whose existence is provable in ZFC) and known algorithms (i.e. algorithms whose definition is constructive and currently known). Assuming that the infiniteness of a set X⊆N is false or unproven, we define which elements of X are classified as known. No known set X⊆N satisfies Conditions (1)-(4) and is widely known in number theory or naturally defined, where this term has only informal meaning. *** (1) A known algorithm with no input returns an integer n satisfying card(X)<ω ⇒ X⊆(-∞,n]. (2) A known algorithm for every k∈N decides whether or not k∈X. (3) No known algorithm with no input returns the logical value of the statement card(X)=ω. (4) There are many elements of X and it is conjectured, though so far unproven, that X is infinite. (5) X is naturally defined. The infiniteness of X is false or unproven. X has the simplest definition among known sets Y⊆N with the same set of known elements. *** Conditions (2)-(5) hold for X=P(n^2+1). The statement Φ implies Condition (1) for X=P(n^2+1). The set X={n∈N: the interval [-1,n] contains more than 29.5+\frac{11!}{3n+1}⋅sin(n) primes of the form k!+1} satisfies Conditions (1)-(5) except the requirement that X is naturally defined. 501893∈X. Condition (1) holds with n=501893. card(X∩[0,501893])=159827. X∩[501894,∞)= {n∈N: the interval [-1,n] contains at least 30 primes of the form k!+1}. We present a table that shows satisfiable conjunctions of the form #(Condition 1) ∧ (Condition 2) ∧ #(Condition 3) ∧ (Condition 4) ∧ #(Condition 5), where # denotes the negation ¬ or the absence of any symbol. No set X⊆N will satisfy Conditions (1)-(4) forever, if for every algorithm with no input, at some future day, a computer will be able to execute this algorithm in 1 second or less. The physical limits of computation disprove this assumption. (shrink)