In this paper we introduce and compare four different syntactic methods for generating sequent calculi for the main systems of modal logic: the multiple sequents method, the higher-arity sequents method, the tree-hypersequents method and the display method. More precisely we show how the first three methods can all be translated in the fourth one. This result sheds new light on these generalisations of the sequent calculus and raises issues that will be examined in the last section.

This paper discusses proof-theoretic semantics, the project of specifying the meanings of the logical constants in terms of rules of inference governing them. I concentrate on Michael Dummett’s and Dag Prawitz’ philosophical motivations and give precise characterisations of the crucial notions of harmony and stability, placed in the context of proving normalisation results in systems of natural deduction. I point out a problem for defining the meaning of negation in this framework and prospects for an account of the meanings of (...) modal operators in terms of rules of inference. (shrink)

A general method for generating contraction- and cut-free sequent calculi for a large family of normal modal logics is presented. The method covers all modal logics characterized by Kripke frames determined by universal or geometric properties and it can be extended to treat also Gödel-Löb provability logic. The calculi provide direct decision methods through terminating proof search. Syntactic proofs of modal undefinability results are obtained in the form of conservativity theorems.

In what does the sense of a sentential connective consist? Like many others, I hold that its sense lies in rules that govern deductions. In the present paper, however, I argue that a classical logician should take the relevant deductions to be arguments involving affirmative or negative answers to yes-or-no questions that contain the connective. An intuitionistic logician will differ in concentrating exclusively upon affirmative answers. I conclude by arguing that a well known intuitionistic criticism of classical logic fails if (...) the answer "No" is accorded parity with the answer "Yes". (shrink)

In 1940 Dugundji proved that no system between S1 and S5 can be characterized by finite matrices. Dugundji’s result forced the development of alternative semantics, in particular Kripke’s relational semantics. The success of this semantics allowed the creation of a huge family of modal systems. With few adaptations, this semantics can characterize almost the totality of the modal systems developed in the last five decades. This semantics however has some limits. Two results of incompleteness showed that not every modal logic (...) can be characterized by Kripke frames. Besides, the creation of non-classical modal logics puts the problem of characterization of finite matrices very far away from the original scope of Dugundji’s result. In this sense, we will show how to update Dugundji’s result in order to make precise the scope and the limits of many-valued matrices as semantic of modal systems. A brief comparison with the useful Chagrov and Zakharyaschev’s criterion of tabularity for modal logics is provided. (shrink)

This is a purely conceptual paper. It aims at presenting and putting into perspective the idea of a proof-theoretic semantics of the logical operations. The first section briefly surveys various semantic paradigms, and Section 2 focuses on one particular paradigm, namely the proof-theoretic semantics of the logical operations.

The paper suggests a revision of the notion of harmony, a major necessary condition in proof-theoretic semantics for a natural-deduction proof-system to qualify as meaning conferring, when moving to a bilateral proof-system. The latter considers both forces of assertion and denial as primitive, and is applied here to positive logics, lacking negation altogether. It is suggested that in addition to the balance between (positive) introduction and elimination rules traditionally imposed by harmony, a balance should be imposed also on: (i) negative (...) introduction and elimination rules, and (ii) positive and negative introduction rules. The paper suggests a proof-theoretical definition of duality (not referring to truthtables), using which double harmony is defined. The paper proves that in a doubly-harmonious system, the coordination rule, typical to bilateral systems, is admissible. (shrink)

The standard inferentialist approaches to modal logic tend to suffer from not being able to uniquely characterize the modal operators, require that introduction and elimination rules be interdefined, or rely on the introduction of possible-world like indexes into the object language itself. In this paper I introduce a hypersequent calculus that is flexible enough to capture many of the standard modal logics and does not suffer from the above problems. It is therefore an ideal candidate to underwrite an inferentialist theory (...) of meaning for modal operators. Here I treat specifically the modal logics K, D, T, S4, B, and S5. I show that the calculi are adequate for each set of models, and show that they meet a large set of criteria that are generally thought necessary for a calculus to underwrite a theory of meaning. (shrink)

The paper suggests a revision of the notion of harmony, a major necessary condition in proof-theoretic semantics for a natural-deduction proof-system to qualify as meaning conferring, when moving to a bilateral proof-system. The latter considers both forces of assertion and denial as primitive, and is applied here to positive logics, lacking negation altogether. It is suggested that in addition to the balance between introduction and elimination rules traditionally imposed by harmony, a balance should be imposed also on: negative introduction and (...) elimination rules, and positive and negative introduction rules. The paper suggests a proof-theoretical definition of duality, using which double harmony is defined. The paper proves that in a doubly-harmonious system, the coordination rule, typical to bilateral systems, is admissible. (shrink)

This volume is the first ever collection devoted to the field of proof-theoretic semantics. Contributions address topics including the systematics of introduction and elimination rules and proofs of normalization, the categorial characterization of deductions, the relation between Heyting's and Gentzen's approaches to meaning, knowability paradoxes, proof-theoretic foundations of set theory, Dummett's justification of logical laws, Kreisel's theory of constructions, paradoxical reasoning, and the defence of model theory. The field of proof-theoretic semantics has existed for almost 50 years, but the term (...) itself was proposed by Schroeder-Heister in the 1980s. Proof-theoretic semantics explains the meaning of linguistic expressions in general and of logical constants in particular in terms of the notion of proof. This volume emerges from presentations at the Second International Conference on Proof-Theoretic Semantics in Tübingen in 2013, where contributing authors were asked to provide a self-contained description and analysis of a significant research question in this area. The contributions are representative of the field and should be of interest to logicians, philosophers, and mathematicians alike. (shrink)

The first mention of the concept of an inconsistency measure for sets of formulas in first-order logic was given in 1978, but that paper presented only classifications for them. The first actual inconsistency measure with a numerical value was given in 2002 for sets of formulas in propositional logic. Since that time, researchers in logic and AI have developed a substantial theory of inconsistency measures. While this is an interesting topic from the point of view of logic, an important motivation (...) for this work is also that some intelligent systems may encounter inconsistencies in their operation. This research deals primarily with propositional knowledge bases, that is, finite sets of propositional logic formulas. The goal of this paper is to extend the concept of inconsistency measure in a formal way to sets of formulas with the modal operators “necessarily” and “possibly” applied to propositional logic formulas. We use frames for the semantics, but in a way that is different from the way that frames are commonly used in modal logics, in order to facilitate measuring inconsistency. As a set of formulas may have different inconsistency measures for different frames, we define the concept of a standard frame that can be used for all finite sets of formulas in the language. We do this for two languages. The first language, AMPL, contains formulas where a prefix of operators is applied to a propositional logic formula. The second language, CMPL, adds connectives that can be applied to AMPL formulas in a limited way. We show how to extend propositional logic inconsistency measures to such sets of formulas. Finally, we define a new concept, weak inconsistency measure, and show how to compute it. (shrink)

We see a systematic set of cut-free axiomatisations for all the basic normal modal logics formed by some combination the axioms d, t, b, 4, 5. They employ a form of deep inference but otherwise stay very close to Gentzen’s sequent calculus, in particular they enjoy a subformula property in the literal sense. No semantic notions are used inside the proof systems, in particular there is no use of labels. All their rules are invertible and the rules cut, weakening and (...) contraction are admissible. All systems admit a straightforward terminating proof search procedure as well as a syntactic cut elimination procedure. (shrink)