Logical and philosophical literature provides different classifications of reasoning. In the Polish literature on the subject, for instance, there are three popular ones accepted by representatives of the Lvov-Warsaw School: Jan Łukasiewicz, Tadeusz Czeżowski and Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz (Ajdukiewicz in Logika pragmatyczna [Pragmatic Logic]. PWN, Warsaw (1965, 2nd ed. 1974). Translated as: Pragmatic Logic. Reidel & PWN, Dordrecht, 1975). The author of this paper, having modified those classifications, distinguished the following types of reasoning: (1) deductive and (2) non-deductive, and additionally two (...) types of them in each of the two, depending on the manner of combining their premises with the conclusion through the relation of classical logical entailment. Consequently, the four types of reasoning: unilateral deductive (incl. its sub-types: deductive inference and proof), bilateral deductive (incl. complete induction), and reductive (incl. the sub-types: explanation and verification), logically nonvaluable (incl. inference by analogy, statistic inference), correspond to four operators of derivability. They are defined formally on the ground of Tarski’s axiomatic theory of deductive systems, by means of the consequence operation _Cn_ (Tarski in Monatshefte Math Phys 37:361–404, 1930a, C R Soc Sci Lett Vars 23:22–29, 1930b). Also, certain metalogical properties of these operators are given, as well as their relations with Tarski’s consequence operations \(Cn^+\) ( \(Cn^+ = Cn\) ) and dual consequences \(Cn^{-1}\) (Słupecki in Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego Seria B Nr 3:33–40, 1959, Słupecki et al. in Stud Log 29:76–123, 1971, Wybraniec-Skardowska, in: Wybraniec-Skardowska, Bryll (eds) Z badań nad teorią zdań odrzuconych [Studies in the Theory of Rejected Propositions], Series B, Studia i Monografie, Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogicznej w Opolu, Opole, 1969), and \(Cn^-\) (Wójcicki in Bull Sect Log 2(2):54–57, 1973)). (shrink)

In the paper, the authors discuss two kinds of consequence operations characterized axiomatically. The first one are consequence operations of the type Cn + that, in the intuitive sense, are infallible operations, always leading from accepted (true) sentences of a deductive system to accepted (true) sentences of the deductive system (see Tarski in Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 37:361–404, 1930, Comptes Rendus des Séances De la Société des Sciences et des Lettres de Varsovie 23:22–29, 1930; Pogorzelski and Słupecki in Stud (...) Logic 9:163–176, 1960, Stud Logic 10:77–95, 1960). The second kind are dual consequence operations of the type Cn − that can be regarded as anti-infallible operations leading from non-accepted (rejected, false) sentences of a deductive system to non-accepted (rejected, false) sentences of the system (see Słupecki in Funkcja Łukasiewicza, 33–40, 1959; Wybraniec-Skardowska in Teoria zdań odrzuconych, 5–131, Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Inżynierskiej w Opolu, Seria Matematyka 4(81):35–61, 1983, Ann Pure Appl Logic 127:243–266, 2004, in On the notion and function of rejected propositions, 179–202, 2005). The operations of the types Cn + and Cn − can be ordinary finitistic consequence operations or unit consequence operations. A deductive system can be characterized in two ways by the following triple: $$\begin{array}{ll}{\rm by\,the\,triple}:\hspace{1.4cm} (+ , -)\hspace{0,6cm} \\ {\rm or\,by\,the\,triple}:\hspace{1.0cm} (-, +)\hspace{0,6cm} .\end{array}$$ We compare axiom systems for operations of the types Cn + and Cn −, give some methodological properties of deductive systems defined by means of these operations (e.g. consistency, completeness, decidability in Łukasiewicz’s sense), as well as formulate different metatheorems concerning them. (shrink)

This study looks to the work of Tarski's mentors Stanislaw Lesniewski and Tadeusz Kotarbinski, and reconsiders all of the major issues in Tarski scholarship in light of the conception of Intuitionistic Formalism developed: semantics, truth, paradox, logical consequence.

In this paper, with reference to relationships of the traditional square of opposition, we establish all the relations of the square of opposition between complex sentences built from the 16 binary and four unary propositional connectives of the classical propositional calculus. We illustrate them by means of many squares of opposition and, corresponding to them—octagons, hexagons or other geometrical objects.