Search

The aim of this paper is to study a particular family of non-deterministic semantics for modal logics that has eight truth-values. These eight-valued semantics can be traced back to Omori and Skurt (2016), where a particular member of this family was used to characterize the normal modal logic K. The truth-values in these semantics convey information about a proposition's truth/falsity, whether the proposition is necessary/not necessary, and whether it is possible/not possible. Each of these triples is represented by a unique value. In this paper we will study which modal logics can be obtained by changing the interpretation of the □ modality, assuming that the interpretation of other connectives stays constant. We will show what axioms are responsible for a particular interpretations of □ . Furthermore, we will study subsets of these axioms. We show that some of the combinations of the axioms are equivalent to well-known modal axioms. We apply the level-valuation technique to all of the systems to regain the closure under the rule of necessitation. We also point out that some of the resulting logics are not sublogics of S5 and comment briefly on the corresponding frame conditions that are forced by these axioms. Ultimately, we sketch a proof of meta-completeness for all of these systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the interplay between logic-sensitivity and bitstring semantics in the square of opposition. Bitstring semantics is a combinatorial technique for representing the formulas that appear in a logical diagram, while logic-sensitivity entails that such a diagram may depend, not only on the formulas involved, but also on the logic with respect to which they are interpreted. These two topics have already been studied extensively in logical geometry, and are thus well-understood by themselves. However, the precise details of their interplay turn out to be far more complicated. In particular, the paper describes an elegant and natural interaction between bitstrings and logic-sensitivity, which makes perfect sense when bitstrings are viewed as purely combinatorial entities. However, when we view bitstrings as semantically meaningful entities (which is actually the standard perspective, cf. the term 'bitstring semantics'!), this interaction does not seem to have a full and equally natural counterpart. The paper describes some attempts to address this situation, but all of them are ultimately found wanting. For now, it thus remains an open problem to capture this interaction between bitstrings and logic-sensitivity from a semantic (rather than merely a combinatorial) perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we will consider the existing notions of bilateralism in the context of proof-theoretic semantics and propose, based on our understanding of bilateralism, an extension to logical multilateralism. This approach differs from what has been proposed under this name before in that we do not consider multiple speech acts as the core of such a theory but rather multiple consequence relations. We will argue that for this aim the most beneficial proof-theoretical realization is to use sequent calculi with multiple sequent arrows satisfying some specific conditions, which we will lay out in this paper. We will unfold our ideas with the help of a case study in logical tetralateralism and present an extension of Almukdad and Nelson's propositional constructive four-valued logic by unary operations of meaningfulness and nonsensicality. We will argue that in sequent calculi with multiple sequent arrows it is possible to maintain certain features that are desirable if we assume an understanding of the meaning of connectives in the spirit of proof-theoretic semantics. The use of multiple sequent arrows will be justified by the presence of congruentiality-breaking unary connectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural language does not express all connectives definable in classical logic as simple lexical items. Coordination in English is expressed by conjunction and, disjunction or, and negated disjunction nor. Other languages pattern similarly. Non-lexicalized connectives are typically expressed compositionally: in English, negated conjunction is typically expressed by combining negation and conjunction (not both). This is surprising: if ∧ and ∨ are duals, and the negation of the latter can be expressed lexically (nor), why not the negation of the former? I present a two-tiered model of the semantics of the binary connectives. The first tier captures the expressive power of the lexicon: it is a bilateral state-based semantics that, under a restriction, can express all and only the distinctions that can be expressed by the lexicon of natural language (and, or, nor). This first tier is characterized by rejection as non-assertion and a Neglect Zero assumption. The second tier is obtained by dropping the Neglect Zero assumption and enforcing a stronger notion of rejection, thereby recovering classical logic and thus definitions for all Boolean connectives. On the two-tiered model, we distinguish the limited expressive resources of the lexicon and the greater combinatorial expressive power of the language as a whole. This gives us a logic-based account of compositionality for the Boolean fragment of the language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Call a truth complete with respect to a subject matter if it entails every truth about that subject matter. One attractive way to formulate a complete truth is to state all the relevant positive truths, and then add: and that's it. When the subject matters under consideration are non-contingent, a non-trivial conception of completeness must invoke a hyperintensional conception of entailment, and of the completion operation denoted by 'that's it'. This paper develops two complementary hyperintensional conceptions of completion using the framework of truthmaker semantics and determines the resulting logics of totality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Putting individual constants and quantifiers into the same syntactic category within first-order language promises to have far-reaching consequences: a syntax of this kind can reveal the potential of any such language, allowing us to realize that a vast class of noun phrases, including non-denoting terms, can be accommodated in the new syntax as expressions suited to being subjects of sentences. In the light of this, a formal system that is an extension of classical first-order logic is developed here, and is equipped with an appropriate semantics. An ontological interpretation of the new logic is then also provided, with several categories of object and notions of existence being distinguished. Last but not least, a modal version of the logic, with some interesting formal features, is proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We give a novel approach to proving soundness and completeness for a logic (henceforth: the object-logic) that bypasses truth-in-a-model to work directly with validity. Instead of working with specific worlds in specific models, we reason with eigenworlds (i.e., generic representatives of worlds) in an arbitrary model. This reasoning is captured by a sequent calculus for a meta-logic (in this case, first-order classical logic) expressive enough to capture the semantics of the object-logic. Essentially, one has a calculus of validity for the object-logic. The method proceeds through the perspective of reductive logic (as opposed to the more traditional paradigm of deductive logic), using the space of reductions as a medium for showing the behavioural equivalence of reduction in the sequent calculus for the object-logic and in the validity calculus. Rather than study the technique in general, we illustrate it for the logic of Bunched Implications (BI), thus IPL and MILL (without negation) are also treated. Intuitively, BI is the free combination of intuitionistic propositional logic and multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic, which renders its meta-theory is quite complex. The literature on BI contains many similar, but ultimately different, algebraic structures and satisfaction relations that either capture only fragments of the logic (albeit large ones) or have complex clauses for certain connectives (e.g., Beth's clause for disjunction instead of Kripke's). It is this complexity that motivates us to use BI as a case-study for this approach to semantics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most ordinary objects - cats, humans, mountains, ships, tables, etc. - have indeterminate mereological boundaries. If the theory of mereology is meant to include ordinary objects at all, we need it to have some space for mereological indeterminacy. In this paper, we present a novel degree-theoretic semantics - Boolean semantics - and argue that it is the best degree-theoretic semantics for modeling mereological indeterminacy, for three main reasons: (a) it allows for incomparable degrees of parthood, (b) it enforces classical logic, and (c) it is compatible with all the axioms of classical mereology. Using Boolean semantics, we will also investigate the connection between vagueness in parthood and vagueness in existence/identity. We show that, contrary to what many have argued, the connection takes neither the form of entailment nor the form of exclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper establishes a sound and complete semantics for the impure logic of ground. Fine (Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(1), 1–25, 2012a) sets out a system for the pure logic of ground, one in which the formulas between which ground-theoretic claims hold have no internal logical complexity; and it provides a sound and complete semantics for the system. Fine (2012b) [§§6-8] sets out a system for an impure logic of ground, one that extends the rules of the original pure system with rules for the truth-functional connectives, the first-order quantifiers, and λ-abstraction. However, no semantics has yet been provided for this system. The present paper partly fills this lacuna by providing a sound and complete semantics for a system GG containing the truth-functional operators that is closely related to the truth-functional part of the system of Fine (2012b). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we present an extension of (bunched) separation logic, Boolean BI, with epistemic and dynamic epistemic modalities. This logic, called action model separation logic (AMSL ), can be seen as a generalization of public announcement separation logic in which we replace public announcements with action models. Then we not only model public information change (public announcements) but also non-public forms of information change, such as private announcements. In this context the semantics for the connectives ∗ and - ∗ from separation logic are epistemic versions of their usual semantics. This is because formulas are interpreted in states, not in resources, and agents may be uncertain between different states representing the same resource. We present the logic AMSL and its semantics, with a detailed case study that highlights its interest for modeling. We also prove the elimination of the dynamics modalities and discuss some alternative epistemic semantics for the separation connectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epistemic contradictions are now a well-known and often discussed phenomenon among those who study epistemic modals. These contradictions are expressed by sentences like 'It is raining and it might not be raining' whose oddness to the common ear demands an explanation. However, it has turned out to be a rather controversial enterprise to provide such an explanation in a sufficiently precise and general manner. According to pragmatic explanations, epistemic contradictions are semantically consistent but pragmatically defective. According to semantic explanations, one should regard epistemic contradictions as plain semantic inconsistencies. Endorsing such a semantic solution is, however, tantamount to rejecting classical logic, which predicts the consistency of epistemic contradictions. After arguing that all existing solutions to this problem face as yet unmet challenges, I will present a new solution that adequately overcomes these challenges. I will propose to view epistemic contradictions as semantically consistent but epistemically defective sentences. The main thesis emerging will be that we need neither abandon the inference rules of classical logic nor the classical truth-conditional approach to semantics to deal adequately with epistemic contradictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many analyses of notion of metainferences in the non-transitive logic ST have tackled the question of whether ST can be identified with classical logic. In this paper, we argue that the primary analyses are overly restrictive of the notion of metainference. We offer a more elegant and tractable semantics for the strict-tolerant hierarchy based on the three-valued function for the LP material conditional. This semantics can be shown to easily handle the introduction of mixed inferences, i.e., inferences involving objects belonging to more than one (meta)inferential level and solves several other limitations of the ST hierarchies introduced by Barrio, Pailos, and Szmuc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I investigate whether the intuitions that make connexive logics seem plausible might lie in pragmatic phenomena, rather than the semantics of conditional statements. I conclude that pragmatics indeed underwrites these intuitions, at least for indicative statements. Whether this has any effect on logic choice (and what that effect might be), however, heavily depends on one's semantic theory of conditionals and on how one chooses to logically treat pragmatic failures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Minker and Rajasekar (J Log Program 9(1):45–74, 1990), Minker proposed a semantics for negation-free disjunctive logic programs that offers a natural generalisation of the fixed point semantics for definite logic programs. We show that this semantics can be further generalised for disjunctive logic programs with classical negation, in a constructive modal-theoretic framework where rules are built from claims and hypotheses, namely, formulas of the form □ φ and ◊ □ φ where φ is a literal, respectively, yielding a "base semantics" for general disjunctive logic programs. Model-theoretically, this base semantics is expressed in terms of a classical notion of logical consequence. It has a complete proof procedure based on a general form of the cut rule. Usually, alternative semantics of logic programs amount to a particular interpretation of nonclassical negation as "failure to derive." The counterpart in our framework is to complement the original program with a set of hypotheses required to satisfy specific conditions, and apply the base semantics to the resulting set. We demonstrate the approach for the answer set semantics. The proposed framework is purely classical in mainly three ways. First, it uses classical negation as unique form of negation. Second, it advocates the computation of logical consequences rather than of particular models. Third, it makes no reference to a notion of preferred or minimal interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper is about three concepts which are crucially involved in Gaṅgeśa's interpretation of a Mīmāṃsā argument against the well-known design inference of the existence of God in Nyāya, namely the concepts "cognition" (jñāna), "certitude" (niścaya) and "doubt" (saṃśaya). According to Maheśa Chandra, the author of the Navya-Nyāya manual Brief Notes on the Modern Nyāya System of Philosophy and its Technical Terms, certitude and doubt are the two varieties of cognition. He illustrates the verbal expression of certitudes by means of declaratives and the verbal expression of doubts by means of interrogatives (functioning as polar or alternative questions). He notes also that different credence levels might be associated with the alternatives involved in a speaker's doubt. A biassed question in the form of a tag interrogative might be an appropriate way to express such a doubt. In Western logic the idea to treat declaratives and interrogatives on a par, which is anticipated by the Navya-Naiyāyikas' use of the unifying concept of "cognition", goes back to Frege's distinction between the semantic content (the "thought") of a sentence and its force and it was recently elaborated by Ciardelli, Farkas, Groenendijk, Roelofsen et al., the founders of a new branch in logic called "inquisitive logic". In the present paper we will discuss Maheśa Chandra's succinct exposition of the Navya-Naiyāyikas' innovative approach from the perspective of this type of logic. As an offshoot of our analysis we will try to elucidate Gaṅgeśa's apologetic concerns about the well-known design inference of the existence of God in Nyāya and its liability to be vitiated by a dubious upādhi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, we (Synthese, 199(5–6):13247–13281, 2021) proposed Kripke-like semantics for two quantum logics of interderminacy. These logics expand the vocabulary of standard Birkhoff-von Neumann propositional quantum logic with a pair of modal operators interpreted as “it is (in)determinate that”, allowing them to express in the object language statements such as “it is indeterminate that system S is spin-up in the x-direction”, as well as statements of any logical complexity involving ascriptions of (in)determinacy. We present an axiomatization of a logic closely related to one of these quantum logics of indeterminacy and prove that this axiomatization is sound and complete with respect to the Kripke-like semantics. We then prove that this logic is decidable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Verifying safety requirements by model checking becomes increasingly important for safety-critical applications. For the validity of such proof in practice, the model needs to capture the actual behavior of the real system, which could be tested by containment checks of real observation traces. Basic equivalence checks, however, are not applicable if the system is only partially or imprecisely observable, if the model abstracts from explicit states with symbolic semantics, or if the checks are not expressible in the logics supported by a model checker. In this article, we solve the problem of observation containment checking in timed automata via reachability checking on tester systems. We introduce the logic SRL (sequence reachability logic) to express observations as sequences of delayed reachability properties. Through SBLL (introduced by Aceto et al.) as intermediate logic, we synthesize a set of matcher model templates for partial and imprecise observations and further extend these templates for the case of limited state accessibility in a model. For the obtained matching traces, we define the back-transformation into the original model domain and formally prove the correctness of the transformation. We implemented the observation matching approach, and apply it to a set of 7 demo and 3 case study models with different levels of observability. The results show that all positive and negative observations are correctly classified, and that the most advanced matcher model instance still offers average run times between 0.1 and 1 s in all but 3 scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces the logic QLETF, a quantified extension of the logic of evidence and truth LETF, together with a corresponding sound and complete first-order non-deterministic valuation semantics. LETF is a paraconsistent and paracomplete sentential logic that extends the logic of first-degree entailment (FDE) with a classicality operator ∘ and a non-classicality operator ∙, dual to each other: while ∘A entails that A behaves classically, ∙A follows from A's violating some classically valid inferences. The semantics of QLETF combines structures that interpret negated predicates in terms of anti-extensions with first-order non-deterministic valuations, and completeness is obtained through a generalization of Henkin's method. By providing sound and complete semantics for first-order extensions of FDE, K3, and LP, we show how these tools, which we call here the method of anti-extensions + valuations, can be naturally applied to a number of non-classical logics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Belief revision theories standardly endorse a principle of intensionality to the effect that ideal doxastic agents do not discriminate between pieces of information that are equivalent within classical logic. I argue that this principle should be rejected. Its failure, on my view, does not require failures of logical omniscience on the part of the agent, but results from a view of the update as mighty: as encoding what the agent learns might be the case, as well as what must be. The view is motivated by consideration of a puzzle case, obtained by transposing into the context of belief revision a kind of scenario that Kit Fine has used to argue against intensionalism about counterfactuals. Employing the framework of truthmaker semantics, I go on to develop a novel account of belief revision, based on a conception of the update as mighty, which validates natural hyperintensional counterparts of the usual AGM postulates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Learning from interpretation transition (LFIT) automatically constructs a model of the dynamics of a system from the observation of its state transitions. So far the systems that LFIT handled were mainly restricted to synchronous deterministic dynamics. However, other dynamics exist in the field of logical modeling, in particular the asynchronous semantics which is widely used to model biological systems. In this paper, we propose a modeling of discrete memory-less multi-valued dynamic systems as logic programs in which a rule represents what can occur rather than what will occur. This modeling allows us to represent non-determinism and to propose an extension of LFIT to learn regardless of the update schemes, allowing to capture a large range of semantics. We also propose a second algorithm which is able to learn a whole system dynamics, including its semantics, in the form of a single propositional logic program with constraints. We show through theoretical results the correctness of our approaches. Practical evaluation is performed on benchmarks from biological literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Jc Beall's off-topic interpretation of Weak Kleene logic offers a logic of 'true-and-topic' preservation. However, Nissim Francez has recently argued that being 'off-topic' is a relational and not an absolute semantic property; as such, it fails to satisfy the conditions of truth-functionality. For Francez, this means that it 'cannot serve as an interpretation of a truth-value'. In this paper, I propose a two-layered reinterpretation of Beall's off-topic semantics. This two-layered framework has two crucial features: a sentential topic-tagging device and a two-layered evaluation tool. I show that this framework results in a logic that preserves Beall's key insight and addresses Francez's concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the miscellaneous ambiguity of semantics in open-domain conversation, current deep dialogue models disregard to detect potential emotional and action response features in the latent space, which leads to the general tendency to produce inaccurate and irrelevant sentences. To address this problem, we propose a semantic-aware conditional variational autoencoder that discriminates the sentiment and action responses features in the latent space for one-to-many open-domain dialogue generation. Specifically, explicit controllable variables are leveraged from the proposed module to create diverse conversational texts. This controllable variable can constrain the distribution of the latent space, disentangling the latent space features during training. Furthermore, the feature disentanglement improves the dialogue generation in terms of deep learning interpretability and text quality, which also reveals the latent features of different emotions on the logic of text generation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We consider systems of rational agents who act and interact in pursuit of their individual and collective objectives. We study and formalise the reasoning of an agent, or of an external observer, about the expected choices of action of the other agents based on their objectives, in order to assess the reasoner's ability, or expectation, to achieve their own objective. To formalize such reasoning we extend Pauly's Coalition Logic with three new modal operators of conditional strategic reasoning, thus introducing the Logic for Local Conditional Strategic Reasoning ConStR . We provide formal semantics for the new conditional strategic operators in concurrent game models, introduce the matching notion of bisimulation for each of them, prove bisimulation invariance and Hennessy–Milner property for each of them, and discuss and compare briefly their expressiveness. Finally, we also propose systems of axioms for each of the basic operators of ConStR and for the full logic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, falsification-aware semantics and sequent calculi for first-order classical logic are introduced and investigated. These semantics and sequent calculi are constructed based on a falsification-aware setting for first-order Nelson constructive three-valued logic (N3). In fact, these semantics and sequent calculi are regarded as those for a classical variant of N3 (i.e., a classical variant of N3 is identical to first-order classical logic). The completeness and cut-elimination theorems for the proposed semantics and sequent calculi are proved using Schütte's method. Similar results for the propositional case are also obtained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Organizing Committee members were: J. A. Bohórquez (Escuela Colombiana de Ingeniería, Bogotá, Colombia), X. Caicedo (Universidad de los Andes, Colombia (Local co-chair)), N. Cardozo (Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia), M. Martínez (Universidad de los Andes, Colombia (Local co-chair)), A. G. de Oliveira (Univ Federal de Pernambuco, Brasil), R. de Queiroz (Univ Federal de Pernambuco, Brasil (co-chair)), C. Rocha (Universidad Javeriana, Cali, Colombia). Previous versions were held at: Recife (Pernambuco, Brazil) in 1994 and 1995; Salvador (Bahia, Brazil) in 1996; Fortaleza (Ceará, Brazil) in 1997; São Paulo (Brazil) in 1998; Itatiaia (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) in 1999; Natal (RN, Brazil) in 2000; Brasília (Distrito Federal, Brazil) in 2001; Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 2002; Ouro Preto (Minas Gerais, Brazil) in 2003; Fontainebleau (France) in 2004; Florianópolis (Santa Catarina, Brazil) in 2005; Stanford (California, USA) in 2006; Rio de Janeiro in 2007; Edinburgh in 2008; Tokyo in 2009; Brasília in 2010; Philadelphia in 2011; Buenos Aires in 2012; Darmstadt in 2013; Valparaiso in 2014; Bloomington (IN) in 2015; Puebla in 2016. I WoLLIC 2018 i was held in Bogotá, Colombia July 24-27, 2018, in the Departamento de Matemáticas of the Universidad de los Andes. [Extracted from the article]

Sentences about logic are often used to show that certain embedding expressions (attitude verbs, conditionals, etc.) are hyperintensional. Yet it is not clear how to regiment "logic talk" in the object language so that it can be compositionally embedded under such expressions. In this paper, I develop a formal system called hyperlogic that is designed to do just that. I provide a hyperintensional semantics for hyperlogic that doesn't appeal to logically impossible worlds, as traditionally understood, but instead uses a shiftable parameter that determines the interpretation of the logical connectives. I argue this semantics compares favorably to the more common impossible worlds semantics, which faces difficulties interpreting propositionally quantified logic talk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we show that, when analyzed with contemporary tools in logic—such as Dunn-style semantics, Reichenbach's three-valued logic exhibits many interesting features, and even new responses to some of the old objections to it can be attempted. Also, we establish some connections between Reichenbach's three-valued logic and some contra-classical logics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-bivalent semantics of the future tense assert that propositions regarding future contingents are neither true nor false. One of the most relevant non-bivalent semantics is supervaluationism (Thomason in Theoria 36(3):264–281, 1970; Thomason, in: Gabbay, Guenthner (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic, Springer, Berlin, 1984), which preserves important logical principles. Recently, non-bivalent semantics are under attack from some pragmatics arguments: these semantics would be incompatible with our practices of asserting future contingents and with the probability we ascribe to such assertions (Besson and Hattiangadi in Philosophical Studies 167(2):251–271, 2014; Cariani and Santorio in Mind 127(505):129–165, 2018). The aim of this paper is to defend supervaluationism against this kind of criticism. We argue that, if probability is interpreted as the subjective belief in a proposition and if a semantic contextualism is adopted, supervaluationism makes correct predictions concerning the norms that govern our practices of asserting future contingents. Obviously, other arguments can be proposed against supervaluationism, but they must be of a different kind, such as metaphysical arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What does logic tells us how about we ought to reason? If P entails Q, and I believe P, should I believe Q? I will argue that we should embed the issue in an independently motivated contextualist semantics for 'ought', with parameters for a standard and set of propositions. With the contextualist machinery in hand, we can defend a strong principle expressing how agents ought to reason while accommodating conflicting intuitions. I then show how our judgments about blame and guidance can be handled by this machinery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops a theory of propositional identity which distinguishes necessarily equivalent propositions that differ in subject-matter. Rather than forming a Boolean lattice as in extensional and intensional semantic theories, the space of propositions forms a non-interlaced bilattice. After motivating a departure from tradition by way of a number of plausible principles for subject-matter, I will provide a Finean state semantics for a novel theory of propositions, presenting arguments against the convexity and nonvacuity constraints which Fine (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4545, 199–226 13, 14, 15) introduces. I will then move to compare the resulting logic of propositional identity (PI1) with Correia's (The Review of Symbolic Logic, 9, 103–122 9) logic of generalised identity (GI), as well as the first degree fragment of Angell's (2) logic of analytic containment (AC). The paper concludes by extending PI1 to include axioms and rules for a subject-matter operator, providing a much broader theory of subject-matter than the principles with which I will begin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, in an ongoing debate about informal provability, non-deterministic logics of informal provability BAT and CABAT were developed to model the notion. CABAT logic is defined as an extension of BAT logics and itself does not have independent and decent semantics. The aim of the paper is to show that, semantically speaking, both logics are rather complex and they can be characterized by neither finitely many valued deterministic semantics nor possible word semantics including neighbourhood semantics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prawitz (1971) conjectured that proof-theoretic validity offers a semantics for intuitionistic logic. This conjecture has recently been proven false by Piecha and Schroeder-Heister (2019). This article resolves one of the questions left open by this recent result by showing the extensional alignment of proof-theoretic validity and general inquisitive logic. General inquisitive logic is a generalisation of inquisitive semantics, a uniform semantics for questions and assertions. The paper further defines a notion of quasi-proof-theoretic validity by restricting proof-theoretic validity to allow double negation elimination for atomic formulas and proves the extensional alignment of quasi-proof-theoretic validity and inquisitive logic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the literature on self-referential paradoxes one of the hardest and most challenging problems is that of revenge. This problem can take many shapes, but, typically, it besets non-classical accounts of some semantic notion, such as truth, that depend on a set of classically defined meta-theoretic concepts, like validity, consistency, and so on. A particularly troubling form of revenge that has received a lot of attention lately involves the concept of validity. The difficulty lies in that the non-classical logician cannot accept her own definition of validity because it is given in a classical meta-theory. It is often suggested that this mismatch between the consequence relation of the account being espoused and the consequence relation of the meta-theory is a serious embarrassment. The main goal of the paper is to explore whether certain substructural accounts of the paradoxes can avoid this sort of embarrassment. Typically, these accounts are expressively incomplete, since they cannot assert in the object language that certain invalid arguments are in fact invalid. To overcome this difficulty I develop a novel type of hybrid proof-procedure, one that takes invalidities to be just as fundamental as validities. I prove that this proof-procedure enjoys a number of interesting properties and I analyze the prospects of applying it to languages capable of expressing self-referential statements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I will defend a new compositional semantics for single-domain free logic. This semantics makes use of a distinction between the semantic value of a singular term and its semantic referent. The semantic value of a singular term is conceived of as a set that either contains the semantic referent or no element at all. The semantic referent is the object that the term designates. Before I will introduce this new semantics for single-domain predicate and an S5-type modal logic in detail, I will present five related problems of compositionality of the standard semantics for these logical systems. After that I will show in detail how my new proposed alternative semantics can be used to solve nearly all of the outlined five problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two-dimensional semantics, which can represent the distinction between a priority and (one kind of) necessity, has wielded considerable influence in the philosophy of language. In this paper, I axiomatize the dagger († ) operator of Stalnaker's "Assertion" (1978) in the formal context of two-dimensional modal logic. The language contains modalities of actuality, necessity, and a priority, but is also able to represent diagonalization, a conceptually important operation in a variety of contexts, including models of the relative a priori and a posteriori often appealed to Bayesian and Gricean contexts. Finally, I sketch the prospects for extending this two-dimensional upgrade to other kinds of modal logics for natural language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We introduce so-called consistent posets which are bounded posets with an antitone involution ′ where the lower cones of x , x ′ and of y , y ′ coincide provided that x, y are different from 0, 1 and, moreover, if x, y are different from 0, then their lower cone is different from 0, too. We show that these posets can be represented by means of commutative meet-directoids with an antitone involution satisfying certain identities and implications. In the case of a finite distributive or strongly modular consistent poset, this poset can be converted into a residuated structure and hence it can serve as an algebraic semantics of a certain non-classical logic with unsharp conjunction and implication. Finally we show that the Dedekind–MacNeille completion of a consistent poset is a consistent lattice, i.e., a bounded lattice with an antitone involution satisfying the above-mentioned properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Together with J. Paseka we introduced so-called sectionally pseudocomplemented lattices and posets and illuminated their role in algebraic constructions. We believe that—similar to relatively pseudocomplemented lattices—these structures can serve as an algebraic semantics of certain intuitionistic logics. The aim of the present paper is to define congruences and filters in these structures, derive mutual relationships between them and describe basic properties of congruences in strongly sectionally pseudocomplemented posets. For the description of filters in both sectionally pseudocomplemented lattices and posets, we use the tools introduced by A. Ursini, i.e., ideal terms and the closedness with respect to them. It seems to be of some interest that a similar machinery can be applied also for strongly sectionally pseudocomplemented posets in spite of the fact that the corresponding ideal terms are not everywhere defined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In linguistics, the dominant approach to the semantics of plurals appeals to mereology. However, this approach has received strong criticisms from philosophical logicians who subscribe to an alternative framework based on plural logic. In the first part of the article, we offer a precise characterization of the mereological approach and the semantic background in which the debate can be meaningfully reconstructed. In the second part, we deal with the criticisms and assess their logical, linguistic, and philosophical significance. We identify four main objections and show how each can be addressed. Finally, we compare the strengths and shortcomings of the mereological approach and plural logic. Our conclusion is that the former remains a viable and well-motivated framework for the analysis of plurals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Part I of this paper, we identified and compared various schemes for trivalent truth conditions for indicative conditionals, most notably the proposals by de Finetti (1936) and Reichenbach (1935, 1944) on the one hand, and by Cooper (Inquiry, 11, 295–320, 1968) and Cantwell (Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 49, 245–260, 2008) on the other. Here we provide the proof theory for the resulting logics DF/TT and CC/TT, using tableau calculi and sequent calculi, and proving soundness and completeness results. Then we turn to the algebraic semantics, where both logics have substantive limitations: DF/TT allows for algebraic completeness, but not for the construction of a canonical model, while CC/TT fails the construction of a Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra. With these results in mind, we draw up the balance and sketch future research projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores trivalent truth conditions for indicative conditionals, examining the "defective" truth table proposed by de Finetti (1936) and Reichenbach (1935, 1944). On their approach, a conditional takes the value of its consequent whenever its antecedent is true, and the value Indeterminate otherwise. Here we deal with the problem of selecting an adequate notion of validity for this conditional. We show that all standard validity schemes based on de Finetti's table come with some problems, and highlight two ways out of the predicament: one pairs de Finetti's conditional (DF) with validity as the preservation of non-false values (TT-validity), but at the expense of Modus Ponens; the other modifies de Finetti's table to restore Modus Ponens. In Part I of this paper, we present both alternatives, with specific attention to a variant of de Finetti's table (CC) proposed by Cooper (Inquiry 11, 295–320, 1968) and Cantwell (Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 49, 245–260, 2008). In Part II, we give an in-depth treatment of the proof theory of the resulting logics, DF/TT and CC/TT: both are connexive logics, but with significantly different algebraic properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I introduce a proof system for the logic of relative fundamentality, as well as a natural semantics with respect to which the system is both sound and complete. I then "modalise" the logic, and finally I discuss the properties of grounding given a suggested account of this notion in terms of necessity and relative fundamentality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence (AI) research enjoyed an initial period of enthusiasm in the 1970s and 80s, but this enthusiasm was tempered by a long interlude of frustration when genuinely useful AI applications failed to be forthcoming. Today, we are experiencing once again a period of enthusiasm, fired above all by the successes of the technology of deep neural networks or deep machine learning. In this paper we draw attention to what we take to be serious problems underlying current views of artificial intelligence encouraged by these successes, especially in the domain of language processing. We then show an alternative approach to language-centric AI, in which we identify a role for philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When we say "I know why he was late", we know not only the fact that he was late, but also an explanation of this fact. We propose a logical framework of "knowing why" inspired by the existing formal studies on why-questions, scientific explanation, and justification logic. We introduce the K y i operator into the language of epistemic logic to express "agent i knows why φ " and propose a Kripke-style semantics of such expressions in terms of knowing an explanation of φ . We obtain two sound and complete axiomatizations w.r.t. two different model classes depending on different assumptions about introspection. Finally we connect our logic with justification logic technically by providing an alternative semantics and an in-depth comparison on various design choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If one takes seriously the idea that a scientific language must be extensional, and accepts Quine's notion of truth-value-related extensionality, and also recognizes that a scientific language must allow for singular terms that do not refer to existing objects, then there is a problem, since this combination of assumptions must be inconsistent. I will argue for a particular solution to the problem, namely, changing what is meant by the word 'extensionality', so that it would not be the truth-value that had to be preserved under the substitution of co-extensional expressions, but the state of affairs that the sentence described. The question is whether or not elementary sentences containing empty singular terms, such as 'Vulcan rotates', are extensional in the substitutivity sense. Five conditions are specified under which extensionality in the substitutivity sense of such sentences can be secured. It is demonstrated that such sentences are state-of-affairs-as-extension-related extensional. This implies (in accordance with the basic idea of state-of-affairs semantics) that such sentences are also truth-value-related extensional in Quine's sense, but not truth-value-as-extension-related extensional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Logical pluralism is commonly described as the view that there is more than one correct logic. It has been claimed that, in order for that view to be interesting, there has to be at least a potential for rivalry between the correct logics. This paper offers a detailed assessment of this suggestion. I argue that an interesting version of logical pluralism is hard, if not impossible, to achieve. I first outline an intuitive understanding of the notions of rivalry and correctness. I then discuss a natural account of rivalry in terms of disagreement about validity claims and the argument from meaning variance that has been raised against it. I explore a more refined picture of the meaning of validity claims that makes use of the character-content distinction of classical two dimensional semantics. There are three ways in which pluralists can use that framework to argue for the view that different logics may be rivals but could nevertheless be equally correct. I argue that none of them is convincing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mental model theory postulates that the meanings of conditionals are based on possibilities. Indicative conditionals—such as "If he is injured tomorrow, then he will take some leave"—have a factual interpretation that can be paraphrased as It is possible, and remains so, that he is injured tomorrow, and in that case certain that he takes some leave. Subjunctive conditionals, such as, "If he were injured tomorrow, then he would take some leave," have a prefactual interpretation that has the same paraphrase. But when context makes clear that his injury will not occur, the subjunctive has a counterfactual paraphrase, with the first clause: It was once possible, but does not remain so, that he will be injured tomorrow. Three experiments corroborated these predictions for participants' selections of paraphrases in their native Spanish, for epistemic and deontic conditionals, for those referring to past and to future events, and for those with then clauses referring to what may or must happen. These results are contrary to normal modal logics. They are also contrary to theories based on probabilities, which are inapplicable to deontic conditionals, such as, "If you have a ticket, then you must enter the show." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open pNets are formal models that can express the behaviour of open systems, either synchronous, asynchronous, or heterogeneous. They are endowed with a symbolic operational semantics in terms of open automata, which allows us to check properties of such systems in a compositional manner. We present an algorithm computing these semantics, building predicates expressing the synchronisation conditions between the events of pNet sub-systems. Checking such predicates requires symbolic reasoning about first order logics and application-specific data. We use the Z3 SMT engine to check satisfiability of the predicates. We also propose and implement an optimised algorithm that performs part of the pruning on the fly, and show its correctness with respect to the original one. We illustrate the approach using two use-cases: the first one is a classical process-algebra operator for which we provide several encodings, and prove some basic properties. The second one is industry-oriented and based on the so-called "BIP architectures", which have been used to specify the control software of a nanosatellite at the EPFL Space Engineering Center. We use pNets to encode a BIP architecture extended with explicit data, compute its semantics and discuss its properties, and then show how our algorithms scale up, using a composition of two such architectures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces the inquisitive extension of R, denoted as InqR, which is a relevant logic of questions based on the logic R as the background logic of declaratives. A semantics for InqR is developed, and it is shown that this semantics is, in a precisely defined sense, dual to Routley-Meyer semantics for R. Moreover, InqR is axiomatized and completeness of the axiomatic system is established. The philosophical interpretation of the duality between Routley-Meyer semantics and the semantics for InqR is also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In addressing the problem of the (in)compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom, philosophers of religion encounter problems regarding the metaphysics and structure of time. Some models of temporal logic developed for completely independent reasons have proved especially appropriate for representing the temporal structure of the world as Molinism conceives it. In particular, some models of the Thin Red Line (TRL ) seem to imply that conditionals of freedom are true or false, as Molinists maintain. Noting the resemblance between Molinism and TRL models, Restall (Molinism and the thin red line. In: Perszyk K (ed) Molinism: the contemporary debate, pp 227–239, 2011) has advanced some criticisms of Molinism that have also been leveled against TRL models. In particular, Restall believes that the implication p → HF p is not true in TRL models. Because Molinists must also accept that this implication is not true, this is a problem for them. We will show that Restall's criticism is wide of the mark. Firstly, it will be demonstrated that in many open future models (not just TRL ) the implication p → HF p is invalid. Secondly, while it is possible to account for this implication, some modifications are required in respect of the branching time semantics. In proposing one such modification, we show that this new semantics can be adopted by advocates of the TRL and, as a consequence, by Molinists as well. We conclude that the principle stated by Restall is either a problem for many open future models (not just for Molinists) or can be accounted for by these models and so is not a problem for Molinists either. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is concerned with removing the identity schema from the axiomatic basis of deontic conditionals. This is in order to allow a stipulated ideal to be contrary or opposite in nature to the fact it is predicated upon. It is desirable, or so it is argued, to retain the order-theoretic orientation of preferential semantics towards the analysis of deontic conditionals, more specifically of maximality semantics in the tradition from Bengt Hansson. So understood, the problem involves abstracting away the settledness assumption that is built in to maximality semantics. This is the assumption that what is optimal given ϕ is that which all the best ϕ-states have in common, notably ϕ itself. We propose a solution based on a strict and finite preference relation over which deontic conditionals are evaluated by letting ϕ-states evolve freely, as fate or fortune would have it, into different possibly ensuing optima that may but need not be ϕ-states themselves. The result is a deontic conditional that does not have identity. This new conditional is shown to be a proper generalization of the Hansson conditional. Hansson's conditional can be recovered in the new idiom as a special case. Indeed, the new semantics is general enough to cover several apparently very different conceptions of deontic conditionality. For instance, the input/output logic known as basic output is a sublogic of the new system. This is somewhat surprising and suggests that there may yet be unity to be had in the field of deontic logic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]