This paper extends the investigations into logical properties of the quantified argument calculus (Quarc) by suggesting a series of proper subsystems which, although retaining the entire vocabulary of Quarc, restrict quantification in such a way as to make the result decidable. The proof of decidability is via a procedure that prunes the infinite branches of a derivation tree in what is a syntactic counterpart of semantic filtration. We demonstrate an application of one of these systems by showing that Aristotle’s assertoric syllogistic is embeddable within, thus also providing another method of showing its decidability.

This paper puts forth a class of algebraic structures, relativized Boolean algebras (RBAs), that provide semantics for propositional logic in which truth/validity is only defined relative to a local domain. In particular, the join of an event and its complement need not be the top element. Nonetheless, behavior is locally governed by the laws of propositional logic. By further endowing these structures with operators—akin to the theory of modal Algebras—RBAs serve as models of modal logics in which truth is relative. In particular, modal RBAs provide semantics for various well-known awareness logics and an alternative view of possibility semantics.

The notion of countable well order admits an alternative definition in terms of embeddings between initial segments. We use the framework of reverse mathematics to investigate the logical strength of this definition and its connection with Fraïssé’s conjecture, which has been proved by Laver. We also fill a small gap in Shore’s proof that Fraïssé’s conjecture implies arithmetic transfinite recursion over $\mathbf {RCA}_0$, by giving a new proof of $\Sigma ^0_2$-induction.

We present sound and complete sequent calculi for the modal mu-calculus with converse modalities, aka two-way modal mu-calculus. Notably, we introduce a cyclic proof system wherein proofs can be represented as finite trees with back-edges, i.e., finite graphs. The sequent calculi incorporate ordinal annotations and structural rules for managing them. Soundness is proved with relative ease as is the case for the modal mu-calculus with explicit ordinals. The main ingredients in the proof of completeness are isolating a class of non-wellfounded proofs with sequents of bounded size, called slim proofs, and a counter-model construction that shows slimness suffices to capture all validities. Slim proofs are further transformed into cyclic proofs by means of re-assigning ordinal annotations.

Reasoning with quantifier expressions in natural language combines logical and arithmetical features, transcending strict divides between qualitative and quantitative. Our topic is this cooperation of styles as it occurs in common linguistic usage and its extension into the broader practice of natural language plus ‘grassroots mathematics’.

We begin with a brief review of $\mathsf {FO}(\#)$, first-order logic with counting operators and cardinality comparisons. This system is known to be of very high complexity, and drowns out finer aspects of the combination of logic and counting. We therefore move to a small fragment that can represent numerical syllogisms and basic reasoning about comparative size: monadic first-order logic with counting, $\mathsf {MFO}(\#)$. We provide normal forms that allow for axiomatization, determine which arithmetical notions can be defined on finite and on infinite models, and conversely, we discuss which logical notions can be defined out of purely arithmetical ones, and what sort of (non-)classical logics can be induced.

Next, we investigate a series of strengthenings of $\mathsf {MFO}(\#)$, again using normal form methods. The monadic second-order version is close, in a precise sense, to additive Presburger Arithmetic, while versions with the natural device of tuple counting take us to Diophantine equations, making the logic undecidable. We also define a system $\mathsf {ML}(\#)$ that combines basic modal logic over binary accessibility relations with counting, needed to formulate ubiquitous reasoning patterns such as the Pigeonhole Principle. We prove decidability of $\mathsf {ML}(\#)$, and provide a new kind of bisimulation matching the expressive power of the language.

As a complement to the fragment approach pursued here, we also discuss two other ways of lowering the complexity of $\mathsf {FO}(\#)$ by changing the semantics of counting in natural ways. A first approach replaces cardinalities by abstract but well-motivated values of ‘mass’ or other mereological aggregating notions. A second approach keeps the cardinalities but generalizes the meaning of counting to work in models that allow dependencies between variables.

Finally, we return to our starting point in natural language, confronting the architecture of our formal systems with linguistic quantifier vocabulary and syntax, as well as with natural reasoning modules such as the monotonicity calculus. In addition to these encounters with formal semantics, we discuss the role of counting in semantic evaluation procedures for quantifier expressions and determine, for instance, which binary quantifiers are computable by finite ‘semantic automata’. We conclude with some general thoughts on yet further entanglements of logic and counting in formal systems, on rethinking the qualitative/quantitative divide, and on connecting our analysis to empirical findings in cognitive science.

We aim at developing a systematic method of separating omniscience principles by constructing Kripke models for intuitionistic predicate logic $\mathbf {IQC}$ and first-order arithmetic $\mathbf {HA}$ from a Kripke model for intuitionistic propositional logic $\mathbf {IPC}$. To this end, we introduce the notion of an extended frame, and show that each IPC-Kripke model generates an extended frame. By using the extended frame generated by an IPC-Kripke model, we give a separation theorem of a schema from a set of schemata in $\mathbf {IQC}$ and a separation theorem of a sentence from a set of schemata in $\mathbf {HA}$. We see several examples which give us separations among omniscience principles.

We prove that the class of all the rings $\mathbb {Z}/m\mathbb {Z}$ for all $m>1$ is decidable. This gives a positive solution to a problem of Ax asked in his celebrated 1968 paper on the elementary theory of finite fields [1, Problem 5, p. 270]. In our proof, we reduce the problem to the decidability of the ring of adeles $\mathbb {A}_{\mathbb {Q}}$ of $\mathbb {Q}$.

This paper is devoted to the investigation of term-definable connexive implications in substructural logics with exchange and, on the semantical perspective, in sub-varieties of commutative residuated lattices (FL${}_{\scriptsize\mbox{e}}$-algebras). In particular, we inquire into sufficient and necessary conditions under which generalizations of the connexive implication-like operation defined in [6] for Heyting algebras still satisfy connexive theses. It will turn out that, in most cases, connexive principles are equivalent to the equational Glivenko property with respect to Boolean algebras. Furthermore, we provide some philosophical upshots like, e.g., a discussion on the relevance of the above operation in relationship with G. Polya’s logic of plausible inference, and some characterization results on weak and strong connexivity.

Two first-order logic theories are definitionally equivalent if and only if there is a bijection between their model classes that preserves isomorphisms and ultraproducts (Theorem 2). This is a variant of a prior theorem of van Benthem and Pearce. In Example 2, uncountably many pairs of definitionally inequivalent theories are given such that their model categories are concretely isomorphic via bijections that preserve ultraproducts in the model categories up to isomorphism. Based on these results, we settle several conjectures of Barrett, Glymour and Halvorson.

Logical frameworks that are sensitive to features of sentences’ subject-matter—like Berto’s topic-sensitive intentional modals (TSIMs)—demand a maximally faithful model of the topics of sentences. This is an especially difficult task in the case in which topics are assigned to intensional formulae. In two previous papers, a framework was developed whose model of intensional subject-matter could accommodate a wider range of intuitions about particular intensional conditionals. Although resolving a number of counterintuitive features, the work made an implicit assumption that the subject-matter of an intensional conditional is a function of the subject-matters of its subformulae. This assumption—which I will call a principle of topic sufficiency—runs counter to some natural intuitions concerning topic. In this paper, we will investigate topic sufficiency and offer a semantic account that is state-sensitive, providing an implementation through the introduction of topic-sensitive logics related to William Parry’s prototypical $\mathsf {PAI}$.

We generalize the notion of consequence relation standard in abstract treatments of logic to accommodate intuitions of relevance. The guiding idea follows the use criterion, according to which in order for some premises to have some conclusion(s) as consequence(s), the premises must each be used in some way to obtain the conclusion(s). This relevance intuition turns out to require not just a failure of monotonicity, but also a move to considering consequence relations as obtaining between multisets. We motivate and state basic definitions of relevant consequence relations, both in single conclusion (asymmetric) and multiple conclusion (symmetric) settings, as well as derivations and theories, guided by the use intuitions, and prove a number of results indicating that the definitions capture the desired results (at least in many cases).

The present note was prompted by Weber’s approach to proving Cantor’s theorem, i.e., the claim that the cardinality of the power set of a set is always greater than that of the set itself. While I do not contest that his proof succeeds, my point is that he neglects the possibility that by similar methods it can be shown also that no non-empty set satisfies Cantor’s theorem. In this paper unrestricted abstraction based on a cut free Gentzen type sequential calculus will be employed to prove both results. In view of the connection between Priest’s three-valued logic of paradox and cut free Gentzen calculi this, a fortiori, has an impact on any paraconsistent set theory built on Priest’s logic of paradox.

Traditionally, the formulae in modal logic express properties of possible worlds. Prior introduced “egocentric” logics that capture properties of agents rather than of possible worlds. In such a setting, the article proposes the modality “know how to tell apart” and gives a complete logical system describing the interplay between this modality and the knowledge modality. An important contribution of this work is a new matrix-based technique for proving completeness theorems in an egocentric setting.

The uncountability of $\mathbb {R}$ is one of its most basic properties, known far outside of mathematics. Cantor’s 1874 proof of the uncountability of $\mathbb {R}$ even appears in the very first paper on set theory, i.e., a historical milestone. In this paper, we study the uncountability of ${\mathbb R}$ in Kohlenbach’s higher-order Reverse Mathematics (RM for short), in the guise of the following principle:

$$\begin{align*}\mathit{for \ a \ countable \ set } \ A\subset \mathbb{R}, \mathit{\ there \ exists } \ y\in \mathbb{R}\setminus A. \end{align*}$$

An important conceptual observation is that the usual definition of countable set—based on injections or bijections to ${\mathbb N}$—does not seem suitable for the RM-study of mainstream mathematics; we also propose a suitable (equivalent over strong systems) alternative definition of countable set, namely union over ${\mathbb N}$ of finite sets; the latter is known from the literature and closer to how countable sets occur ‘in the wild’. We identify a considerable number of theorems that are equivalent to the centred theorem based on our alternative definition. Perhaps surprisingly, our equivalent theorems involve most basic properties of the Riemann integral, regulated or bounded variation functions, Blumberg’s theorem, and Volterra’s early work circa 1881. Our equivalences are also robust, promoting the uncountability of ${\mathbb R}$ to the status of ‘big’ system in RM.

This paper proves the finite axiomatizability of transitive modal logics of finite depth and finite width w.r.t. proper-successor-equivalence. The frame condition of the latter requires, in a rooted transitive frame, a finite upper bound of cardinality for antichains of points with different sets of proper successors. The result generalizes Rybakov’s result of the finite axiomatizability of extensions of $\mathbf {S4}$ of finite depth and finite width.

In their logical analysis of theorems about disjoint rays in graphs, Barnes, Shore, and the author (hereafter BGS) introduced a weak choice scheme in second-order arithmetic, called the $\Sigma ^1_1$ axiom of finite choice (hereafter finite choice). This is a special case of the $\Sigma ^1_1$ axiom of choice ($\Sigma ^1_1\text {-}\mathsf {AC}_0$) introduced by Kreisel. BGS showed that $\Sigma ^1_1\text {-}\mathsf {AC}_0$ suffices for proving many of the aforementioned theorems in graph theory. While it is not known if these implications reverse, BGS also showed that those theorems imply finite choice (in some cases, with additional induction assumptions). This motivated us to study the proof-theoretic strength of finite choice. Using a variant of Steel forcing with tagged trees, we show that finite choice is not provable from the $\Delta ^1_1$-comprehension scheme (even over $\omega $-models). We also show that finite choice is a consequence of the arithmetic Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem (introduced by Friedman and studied by Conidis), assuming $\Sigma ^1_1$-induction. Our results were used by BGS to show that several theorems in graph theory cannot be proved using $\Delta ^1_1$-comprehension. Our results also strengthen results of Conidis.

It is widely thought that chance should be understood in reductionist terms: claims about chance should be understood as claims that certain patterns of events are instantiated. There are many possible reductionist theories of chance, differing as to which possible pattern of events they take to be chance-making. It is also widely taken to be a norm of rationality that credence should defer to chance: special cases aside, rationality requires that one’s credence function, when conditionalized on the chance-making facts, should coincide with the objective chance function. It is a shortcoming of a theory of chance if it implies that this norm of rationality is unsatisfiable. The primary goal of this paper is to show, on the basis of considerations concerning computability and inductive learning, that this shortcoming is more common than one would have hoped.

In this note we study a counterpart in predicate logic of the notion of logical friendliness, introduced into propositional logic in [15]. The result is a new consequence relation for predicate languages with equality using first-order models. While compactness, interpolation and axiomatizability fail dramatically, several other properties are preserved from the propositional case. Divergence is diminished when the language does not contain equality with its standard interpretation.

The paper investigates from a proof-theoretic perspective various non-contractive logical systems, which circumvent logical and semantic paradoxes. Until recently, such systems only displayed additive quantifiers (Grišin and Cantini). Systems with multiplicative quantifiers were proposed in the 2010s (Zardini), but they turned out to be inconsistent with the naive rules for truth or comprehension. We start by presenting a first-order system for disquotational truth with additive quantifiers and compare it with Grišin set theory. We then analyze the reasons behind the inconsistency phenomenon affecting multiplicative quantifiers. After interpreting the exponentials in affine logic as vacuous quantifiers, we show how such a logic can be simulated within a truth-free fragment of a system with multiplicative quantifiers. Finally, we establish that the logic for these multiplicative quantifiers (but without disquotational truth) is consistent, by proving that an infinitary version of the cut rule can be eliminated. This paves the way to a syntactic approach to the proof theory of infinitary logic with infinite sequents.

In this article we define a logical system called Hybrid Partial Type Theory ($\mathcal {HPTT}$). The system is obtained by combining William Farmer’s partial type theory with a strong form of hybrid logic. William Farmer’s system is a version of Church’s theory of types which allows terms to be non-denoting; hybrid logic is a version of modal logic in which it is possible to name worlds and evaluate expressions with respect to particular worlds. We motivate this combination of ideas in the introduction, and devote the rest of the article to defining, axiomatising, and proving a completeness result for $\mathcal {HPTT}$.