Search

The traditional square of opposition is generalized and extended to a cube of opposition covering and conveniently visualizing inter-sentential oppositions in relational syllogistic logic with the usual syllogistic logic sentences obtained as special cases. The cube comes about by considering Frege–Russell’s quantifier predicate logic with one relation comprising categorical syllogistic sentence forms. The relationships to Buridan’s octagon, to Aristotelian modal logic, and to Klein’s 4-group are discussed. The photo shows a prototype sculpture for the cube.

Anselm of Cantorbery wrote Proslogion (1077–1078), where is formulated the famous ‘Unum argumentum’ about the existence of God. This argument was been disputed and criticized by numerous logicians from an extensional view point. The classical predicate logic is not able to give a formal frame to develop an adequate analysis of this argument. According to us, this argument is not an ontological proof; it analyses the meaning of the “quo nihil maius cogitari posit”, a characterization of God, and establish, by absurd, that “quod non posit cogitare non esse” by using the hypothesis: “to think in re” is taller than “to think in solo intelectu”. We discuss this relation and the difference between the meanings of the elementary predicates ‘to be in re’, ‘to be in intellectu’ and ‘to be in solo intellectu’. We propose a new logical approach of this ‘Unum argumentum’ of Anselm by using Curry’s Combinatory Logic (1958, 1973). Indeed, Combinatory Logic is an abstract applicative formalism of operators applied to operands; in this formalism, the predicates, viewed as specific operators, can be composed and can be transformed, by an intrinsic way, into more complex predicates, by means of abstract operators, called “combinators”, studied by Combinatory Logic. We show that this formalism is a logical frame where it becomes possible to discuss and to formulate cognitive representations of the meanings of predicates used inside of the ‘Unum argumentum’ and to explain how the argument runs.

This paper offers a framework for extending Arnon Avron and Iddo Lev’s non-deterministic semantics to quantified predicate logic with the intent of resolving several problems and limitations of Avron and Anna Zamansky’s approach. By employing a broadly Fregean picture of logic, the framework described in this paper has the benefits of permitting quantifiers more general than Walter Carnielli’s distribution quantifiers and yielding a well-behaved model theory. This approach is purely objectual and yields the semantical equivalence of both α-equivalent formulae and formulae differing only by codenotative terms. Finally, we make a brief excursion into non-deterministic model theory, proving a strong Łoś’ Theorem and compactness for all finitely-valued, non-deterministic logics whose quantifiers have intensions describable in a first order metalanguage.

The logic of proofs is a refinement of modal logic introduced by Artemov in 1995 in which the modality ◻A is revisited as ⟦t⟧A where t is an expression that bears witness to the validity of A. It enjoys arithmetical soundness and completeness and is capable of reflecting its own proofs (⊦A implies ⊦ ⟦t⟧A, for some t). We develop the Hypothetical Logic of Proofs, a reformulation of LP based on judgemental reasoning Fil: Bonelli, Eduardo Augusto. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires; Argentina Fil: Steren, Gabriela. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Computación; Argentina

Prior investigated a tense logic with an operator for ‘historical necessity’, where a proposition is necessary at a time iff it is true at that time in all worlds ‘accessible’ from that time. Axiomatisations of this logic all seem to require non-standard axioms or rules. The present paper presents an axiomatisation of a first-order version of Prior’s logic by using a predicate which enables any time to be picked out by an individual in the domain of interpretation.

The main tool of the arithmetization and logization of analysis in the history of nineteenth century mathematics was an informal logic of quantifiers in the guise of the “epsilon–delta” technique. Mathematicians slowly worked out the problems encountered in using it, but logicians from Frege on did not understand it let alone formalize it, and instead used an unnecessarily poor logic of quantifiers, viz. the traditional, first-order logic. This logic does not e.g. allow the definition and study of mathematicians’ uniformity concepts important in analysis. Mathematicians’ stronger logic was rediscovered around 1990 as the form of independence-friendly logic which hence is not a new logic nor a further development of ordinary first-order logic but a richer version of it.

Since its publication in 1967, van Heijenoort’s paper, “Logic as Calculus and Logic as Language” has become a classic in the historiography of modern logic. According to van Heijenoort, the contrast between the two conceptions of logic provides the key to many philosophical issues underlying the entire classical period of modern logic, the period from Frege’s Begriffsschrift (1879) to the work of Herbrand, Godel and Tarski in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The present paper is a critical reflection on some aspects of van Heijenoort’s thesis. I concentrate on the case of Frege and Russell and the claim that their philosophies of logic are marked through and through by acceptance of the universalist conception of logic, which is an integral part of the view of logic as language. Using the so-called “Logocentric Predicament” (Henry M. Sheffer) as an illustration, I shall argue that the universalist conception does not have the consequences drawn from it by the van Heijenoort tradition. The crucial element here is that we draw a distinction between logic as a universal science and logic as a theory. According to both Frege and Russell, logic is first and foremost a universal science, which is concerned with the principles governing inferential transitions between propositions; but this in no way excludes the possibility of studying logic also as a theory, i.e., as an explicit formulation of (some) of these principles. Some aspects of this distinction will be discussed.

Using Heijenoort’s unpublished generalized rules of quantification, we discuss the proof of Herbrand’s Fundamental Theorem in the form of Heijenoort’s correction of Herbrand’s “False Lemma” and present a didactic example. Although we are mainly concerned with the inner structure of Herbrand’s Fundamental Theorem and the questions of its quality and its depth, we also discuss the outer questions of its historical context and why Bernays called it “the central theorem of predicate logic” and considered the form of its expression to be “concise and felicitous”.

In this paper we show that some versions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frames are equivalent to classical propositional logic. In fact, Dung’s attack relation is none other than the generalised Peirce–Quine dagger connective of classical logic which can generate the other connectives $${\neg, \wedge, \vee, \to}$$ of classical logic. After establishing the above correspondence we offer variations of the Dung argumentation frames in parallel to variations of classical logic, such as resource logics, predicate logic, etc., etc., and create resource argumentation frames, predicate argumentation frames, etc., etc. We also offer the notion of logic proof as a geometrical walk along the nodes of a Dung network and thus we are able to offer a geometrical abstraction of the notion of inference based argumentation. Thus our paper is also a contribution to the question: “What is a logical system” in as much as it integrates logic with abstract argumentation networks.

The logic with independent truth and falsehood operators TFL is proposed. In TFL(→) standard truth-conditions for the implication are adopted. Nevertheless the laws of classical logic are not valid. In this language more then 107 different binary connectives can be defined. So this logic can be treated as universal logic relatively to the class of sentential logics.

Is logic, feasibly, a product of natural selection? In this paper we treat this question as dependent upon the prior question of where logic is founded. After excluding other possibilities, we conclude that logic resides in our language, in the shape of inferential rules governing the logical vocabulary of the language. This means that knowledge of (the laws of) logic is inseparable from the possession of the logical constants they govern. In this sense, logic may be seen as a product of natural selection: the emergence of logic requires the development of creatures who can wield structured languages of a specific complexity, and who are capable of putting the languages to use within specific discursive practices.

We study logic translations from an abstract perspective, without any commitment to the structure of sentences and the nature of logical entailment, which also means that we cover both proof- theoretic and model-theoretic entailment. We show how logic translations induce notions of logical expressiveness, consistency strength and sublogic, leading to an explanation of paradoxes that have been described in the literature. Connectives and quantifiers, although not present in the definition of logic and logic translation, can be recovered by their abstract properties and are preserved and reflected by translations under suitable conditions.