Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:02:31.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

JUXTAPOSITION: A NEW WAY TO COMBINE LOGICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2011

JOSHUA SCHECHTER
JOSHUA SCHECHTER*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Brown University
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, BROWN UNIVERSITY, BOX 1918, PROVIDENCE, RI 02912. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper develops a new framework for combining propositional logics, called “juxtaposition.” Several general metalogical theorems are proved concerning the combination of logics by juxtaposition. In particular, it is shown that under reasonable conditions, juxtaposition preserves strong soundness. Under reasonable conditions, the juxtaposition of two consequence relations is a conservative extension of each of them. A general strong completeness result is proved. The paper then examines the philosophically important case of the combination of classical and intuitionist logics. Particular attention is paid to the phenomenon of collapse. It is shown that there are logics with two stocks of classical or intuitionist connectives that do not collapse. Finally, the paper briefly investigates the question of which rules, when added to these logics, lead to collapse.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 560 - 606
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blok, W., & Pigozzi, D. (1989). Algebraizable Logics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caleiro, C., Carnielli, W., Rasga, J., & Sernadas, C. (2005). Fibring of logics as a universal construction. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic (second edition), Vol. 13. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 123–187.Google Scholar
Caleiro, C., & Ramos, J. (2007). From fibring to cryptofibring: A solution to the collapsing problem. Logica Universalis, 1, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1943). The Formalization of Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reprinted with his Introduction to Semantics in a single volume, 1959.Google Scholar
Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M., Gabbay, D. M., Gouveia, P., & Sernadas, C. (2008). Analysis and Synthesis of Logics: How to Cut and Paste Reasoning Systems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Coniglio, M. (2007). Recovering a logic from its fragments by meta-fibring. Logica Universalis, 1, 377–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz-Filipe, L., Sernadas, A., & Sernadas, C. (2007). Heterogenous fibring of deductive systems via abstract proof systems. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 16, 121–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czelakowski, J. (1981). Equivalential logics (I), (II). Studia Logica, 40, 227–236; 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czelakowski, J. (2003). The Suszko operator I. Studia Logica, 74, 181–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czelakowski, J., & Pigozzi, D. (2004). Fregean logics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 127, 17–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Cerro, L. F., & Herzig, A. (1996). Combining classical and intuitionistic logic, or: Intuitionistic implication as a conditional. In Baader, F., and Schultz, K., editors. Frontiers of Combining Systems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, H. (2001). Some thoughts on radical indeterminacy. In Truth and the Absence of Fact. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, pp. 258–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbay, D. (1998). Fibring Logics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentzen, G. (1934/1935). Untersuchungen über das logische schließen. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39, 176–210; 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hand, M. (1993). Negations in conflict. Erkenntnis, 38, 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. (1986). Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, J. H. (1982). What’s so logical about the ‘logical axioms’? Studia Logica, 41, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humberstone, L. (2011). The Connectives. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loś, J., & Suszko, R. (1958). Remarks on sentential logics. Indagationes Mathematicae, 20, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, V. (1997). How we learn mathematical language. The Philosophical Review, 106(1), 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, V. (2000). Everything. In Sher, G., and Tieszen, R., editors. Between Logic and Intuition: Essays in Honor of Charles Parsons, Chapter 3. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 54–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C. (1990). The uniqueness of the natural numbers. Iyyun, 13, 13–44.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1948). On the theory of deduction, part II: The definitions of classical and intuitionistic negation. Indagationes Mathematicae, 10, 111–120.Google Scholar
Prucnal, T., & Wroński, A. (1974). An algebraic characterization of the notion of structural completeness. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 3, 30–33.Google Scholar
Rasiowa, H. (1974). An Algebraic Approach to Non-Classical Logics. Warsaw, Poland: Polish Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
Rasiowa, H., & Sikorski, R. (1970). The Mathematics of Metamathematics (third edition). Warsaw, Poland: Polish Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
Rautenberg, W. (1981). 2-element matrices. Studia Logica, 40, 315–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sernadas, C., Rasga, J., & Carnielli, W. (2002). Modulated fibring and the collapsing problem. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 67(4), 1541–1569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sernadas, A., Sernadas, C., & Caleiro, C. (1999). Fibring of logics as a categorial construction. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(2), 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1991). Foundations without Foundationalism: The Case for Second-Order Logic. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (1987). Equivocation and existence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 87, 109–127.Google Scholar
Wójcicki, R. (1988). Theory of Logical Calculi: Basic Theory of Consequence Operations. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanardo, A., Sernadas, A., & Sernadas, C. (2001). Fibring: Completeness preservation. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 66(1), 414–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar