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)

In the paper, we tackle the matter of non-classical logics, in particular, paraconsistent ones, for which not every formula follows in general from inconsistent premisses. Our benchmark is Jaśkowski’s logic, modeled with the help of discussion. The second key origin of this paper is the matter of being tabular, i.e. being adequately expressible by finitely many finite matrices. We analyse Jaśkowski’s non-tabular discussive (discursive) logic $ \textbf {D}_{2}$, one of the first paraconsistent logics, from the perspective of a trivalent tabular (...) logic. We are motivated to step down from the ongoing modal $ \textbf {S5}$-perspective of developing $ \textbf {D}_{2}$ both by certain mysteries that have been surrounding it and by gaps in Jaśkowski’s arguments contra the multivalent tabular perspective. Although Jaśkowski’s idea to use $ \textbf {S5}$ in order to define $ \textbf {D}_{2}$ is very attractive since it allows one to benefit from the tools and results of modal logic, it also gives a ‘non-direct’ formulation and, as it appeared later, is superfluous with respect to what is meant to be achieved since one can define the very same logic but using modal logics weaker than S5. It is also known, due to Kotas, that discussive logic is not finite-valued. So, in light of Kotas’s result that $ \textbf {D}_{2}$ is non-tabular, we propose to associate it with a few dozen discussive formulae that Jaśkowski unequivocally and illustratively suggests to be its theorems or non-theorems rather than with axioms of its modern axiomatizations (one of which Kotas employs) in order to be capable of performing a computer-aided brute-force search for suitable trivalent matrices in the cases of one and two designated values. As a result, we find trivalent matrices with two designated values that might be dubbed ‘discussive’ because they meet Jaśkowski’s suggestion to validate and invalidate the litmus theorems and non-theorems, respectively, despite the fact that none of them validates all the negation axioms in the modern axiomatizations of $ \textbf {D}_{2}$. The matrices found are then analysed along with highlighting the ones that were previously mentioned in the literature. We conclude the paper with a comparative analysis of Omori’s results and a test of Karpenko’s hypothesis. (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.

A non-Fregean framework aims to provide a formal tool for reasoning about semantic denotations of sentences and their interactions. Extending a logic to its non-Fregean version involves introducing a new connective$$\equiv $$≡that allows to separate denotations of sentences from their logical values. Intuitively,$$\equiv $$≡combines two sentences$$\varphi $$φand$$\psi $$ψinto a true one whenever$$\varphi $$φand$$\psi $$ψhave the same semantic correlates, describe the same situations, or have the same content or meaning. The paper aims to compare non-Fregean paraconsistent Grzegorczyk’s logics (Logic of Descriptions$$\textsf{LD}$$LD, (...) Logic of Descriptions with Suszko’s Axioms$$\textsf{LDS}$$LDS, Logic of Equimeaning$$\textsf{LDE}$$LDE) with non-Fregean versions of certain well-known paraconsistent logics (Jaśkowski’s Discussive Logic$$\textsf{D}_2$$D2, Logic of Paradox$$\textsf{LP}$$LP, Logics of Formal Inconsistency$$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$LFI1and$$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$LFI2). We prove that Grzegorczyk’s logics are either weaker than or incomparable to non-Fregean extensions of$$\textsf{LP}$$LP,$$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$LFI1,$$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$LFI2. Furthermore, we show that non-Fregean extensions of$$\textsf{LP}$$LP,$$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$LFI1,$$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$LFI2, and$$\textsf{D}_2$$D2are more expressive than their original counterparts. Our results highlight that the non-Fregean connective$$\equiv $$≡can serve as a tool for expressing various properties of the ontology underlying the logics under consideration. (shrink)

In the paper, we consider a particular way of obtaining modal extensions of the discussive logic \({\textbf {D}} _{{\textbf {2}} }\) (Jaśkowski 1948 ; 1949 ). The proposed framework of defining modal discussive logics is a novelty compared to the one presented in Mruczek-Nasieniewska et al. ( 2019 _Logic Journal of IGPL, 27_(4), 451–477). In this case, different discussants may have different views about what is necessary (resp. possible) in a given world. We enrich the intuitive model of discussion given (...) by Jaśkowski. This is obtained by considering two-sorted frames. The first sort consists of discussants and the second of situations. We have a universal accessibility relation between the discussants, i.e., we use the standard semantic formulation of \({\textbf {S5}} \), which is characteristic of the original variant of the discussive logic \({\textbf {D}} _{{\textbf {2}} }\). For a frame, a valuation assigns to each discussant a set of atomic sentences they accept in a given situation. Although different discussants may have different views about what occurs in a given world, their views should be within the same “domain of possibilities”. Therefore, we have a common set of possible situations and an accessibility relation for all discussants. The introduction of modal operators allows for specifying strict discussive implications, which—as it seems—correspond to colloquial discussive conditionals better than Jaśkowski’s discussive implication. We also analyze various semantic and syntactic (including axiomatizations) aspects of modal discussive logics resulting from the proposed framework. (shrink)