In recent years, some theorists have argued that the clogics are not only defined by their inferences, but also by their metainferences. In this sense, logics that coincide in their inferences, but not in their metainferences were considered to be different. In this vein, some metainferential logics have been developed, as logics with metainferences of any level, built as hierarchies over known logics, such as \, and \. What is distinctive of these metainferential logics is that they are mixed, i.e. (...) the standard for the premises and the conclusion is not necessarily the same. However, so far, all of these systems have been presented following a semantical standpoint, in terms of valuations based on the Strong Kleene truth-tables. In this article, we provide sound and complete sequent-calculi for the valid inferences and the invalid inferences of the logics \ and \, and introduce an algorithm that allows obtaining sound and complete sequent-calculi for the global validities and the global invalidities of any metainferential logic of any level. (shrink)

Recently, several authors have pointed out that substructural logics are adequate for developing naive theories that represent semantic concepts such as truth. Among them, three proposals have been explored: dropping cut, dropping contraction and dropping reflexivity. However, nowhere in the substructural literature has anyone proposed rejecting the structural rule of weakening, while accepting the other rules. Some theorists have even argued that this task was not possible, since weakening plays no role in the derivation of semantic paradoxes. In this article, (...) I introduce a theory for naive truth based on the logic resulting from dropping the rule of weakening from classical logic, and maintaining the other structural rules. (shrink)

The implicational fragment of the logic of relevant implication, $R_{\to}$ is one of the oldest relevance logics and in 1959 was shown by Kripke to be decidable. The proof is based on $LR_{\to}$ , a Gentzen-style calculus. In this paper, we add the truth constant $\mathbf{t}$ to $LR_{\to}$ , but more importantly we show how to reshape the sequent calculus as a consecution calculus containing a binary structural connective, in which permutation is replaced by two structural rules that involve $\mathbf{t}$ (...) . This calculus, $LT_\to^{\text{\textcircled{$\mathbf{t}$}}}$ , extends the consecution calculus $LT_{\to}^{\mathbf{t}}$ formalizing the implicational fragment of ticket entailment . We introduce two other new calculi as alternative formulations of $R_{\to}^{\mathbf{t}}$ . For each new calculus, we prove the cut theorem as well as the equivalence to the original Hilbert-style axiomatization of $R_{\to}^{\mathbf{t}}$ . These results serve as a basis for our positive solution to the long open problem of the decidability of $T_{\to}$ , which we present in another paper. (shrink)

We generalize the notion of consequence relation standard in abstract treatments of logic to accommodate intuitions of relevance. The guiding idea follows the use criterion, according to which in order for some premises to have some conclusion(s) as consequence(s), the premises must each be used in some way to obtain the conclusion(s). This relevance intuition turns out to require not just a failure of monotonicity, but also a move to considering consequence relations as obtaining between multisets. We motivate and state (...) basic definitions of relevant consequence relations, both in single conclusion (asymmetric) and multiple conclusion (symmetric) settings, as well as derivations and theories, guided by the use intuitions, and prove a number of results indicating that the definitions capture the desired results (at least in many cases). (shrink)

Relevant logics are a family of non-classical logics characterized by the behavior of their implication connectives. Unlike some other non-classical logics, such as intuitionistic logic, there are multiple philosophical views motivating relevant logics. Further, different views seem to motivate different logics. In this article, we survey five major views motivating the adoption of relevant logics: Use Criterion, sufficiency, meaning containment, theory construction, and truthmaking. We highlight the philosophical differences as well as the different logics they support. We end with some (...) questions for future research. (shrink)

The principle of tolerance characteristic of vague predicates is sometimes presented as a soft rule, namely as a default which we can use in ordinary reasoning, but which requires care in order to avoid paradoxes. We focus on two ways in which the tolerance principle can be modeled in that spirit, using special consequence relations. The first approach relates tolerant reasoning to nontransitive reasoning; the second relates tolerant reasoning to nonmonotonic reasoning. We compare the two approaches and examine three specific (...) consequence relations in relation to those, which we call: strict-to-tolerant entailment, pragmatic-to-tolerant entailment, and pragmatic-to-pragmatic entailment. The first two are nontransitive, whereas the latter two are nonmonotonic. (shrink)

We generalise the Blok–Jónsson account of structural consequence relations, later developed by Galatos, Tsinakis and other authors, in such a way as to naturally accommodate multiset consequence. While Blok and Jónsson admit, in place of sheer formulas, a wider range of syntactic units to be manipulated in deductions (including sequents or equations), these objects are invariablyaggregatedvia set-theoretical union. Our approach is more general in that nonidempotent forms of premiss and conclusion aggregation, including multiset sum and fuzzy set union, are considered. (...) In their abstract form, thus,deductive relationsare defined as additional compatible preorderings over certain partially ordered monoids. We investigate these relations using categorical methods and provide analogues of the main results obtained in the general theory of consequence relations. Then we focus on the driving example of multiset deductive relations, providing variations of the methods of matrix semantics and Hilbert systems in Abstract Algebraic Logic. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is to show how modal logic may be conceived as recording the derived rules of a logical system in the system itself. This conception of modal logic was propounded by Dana Scott in the early seventies. Here, similar ideas are pursued in a context less classical than Scott's.First a family of propositional logical systems is considered, which is obtained by gradually adding structural rules to a variant of the nonassociative Lambek calculus. In this family one (...) finds systems that correspond to the associative Lambek calculus, linear logic, relevant logics, BCK logic and intuitionistic logic. Above these basic systems, sequent systems parallel to the basic systems are constructed, which formalize various notions of derived rules for the basic systems. The deduction theorem is provable for the basic systems if, and only if, they are at least as strong as systems corresponding to linear logic, or BCK logic, depending on the language, and their deductive metalogic is not stronger than they are. (shrink)

In this paper we explain our pretense account of truth-talk and apply it in a diagnosis and treatment of the Liar Paradox. We begin by assuming that some form of deflationism is the correct approach to the topic of truth. We then briefly motivate the idea that all T-deflationists should endorse a fictionalist view of truth-talk, and, after distinguishing pretense-involving fictionalism (PIF) from error- theoretic fictionalism (ETF), explain the merits of the former over the latter. After presenting the basic framework (...) of our PIF account of truth-talk, we demonstrate a few advantages it offers over T-deflationist accounts that do not explicitly acknowledge pretense at work in the discourse. In turning to the Liar Paradox, we explain how the quasi-anaphoric functioning that our account attributes to truth-talk provides a diagnosis of the Liar Paradox (and other instances of semantic pathology) as having no content—in the sense of not specifying any of what we call M-conditions. At the same time, however, we vindicate the intuition that we can understand liar sentences, thereby avoiding one standard objection to “meaningless strategy” responses to the Liar Paradox. With this diagnosis in place, we then, by way of treatment, introduce a new predicate, ‘semantically defective’, and show how the explanation we give for its application allows for a consistent, yet revenge-immune, (dis)solution of the Liar Paradox, and semantic pathology generally. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In this work we argue for relevant logics as a basis for paraconsistent epistemic logics. In order to do so, a paraconsistent nonmonotonic multi-agent epistemic logic, MDR (for Modal Defeasible Relevant), is briefly introduced. In MDR each agent has two kinds of belief: an absolute belief that P, represented by AiP, and a defeasible belief that P, represented by DiP. Therefore, an agent can reason with his own absolute and defeasible beliefs about the world and also reason about his (...) beliefs about other agents' beliefs both absolute and defeasible. A theorem is presented showing some patterns of reasoning in MDR. Avron's relevant logic RMI? s compared proof theoretically with Anderson and Belnap's relevant logics R and RM and also with Da Costa's paraconsistent logic CI, with respect to some desired properties of absolute and defeasible beliefs. Then we can understand why RMI was chosen to be the underlying logic for the monotonie part (the absolute beliefs) of MDR, and had to be modified and integrated with a nonmonotonic logic in order to be the underlying logic for the nonmonotonic part (defeasible beliefs). (shrink)