The term ‘harmony’ refers to a condition that the rules governing a logical constant ought to satisfy in order to endow it with a proper meaning. Different characterizations of harmony have been proposed in the literature, some based on the inversion principle, others on normalization, others on conservativity. In this paper we discuss the prospects for showing how conservativity and normalization can be combined so to yield a criterion of harmony equivalent to the one based on the inversion principle: We conjecture that the rules for connectives obeying the inversion principle are conservative over normal deducibility. The plausibility of the conjecture depends in an essential way on how normality is characterized. In particular, a normal deduction should be understood as one which is irreducible, rather than as one which does not contain any maximal formula.

What is the logical strength of theories of truth? That is: If you take a theory ${\cal T}$ and add a theory of truth to it, how strong is the resulting theory, as compared to ${\cal T}$? Once the question has been properly formulated, the answer turns out to be about as elegant as one could want: At least when ${\cal T}$ is finitely axiomatized theory, theories of truth act more or less as a kind of abstract consistency statement. To prove this result, however, we have to formulate truth-theories somewhat differently from how they have been and instead follow Tarski in ‘disentangling’ syntactic theories from object theories.

We present an extension of the basic revision theory of circular definitions with a unary operator, □. We present a Fitch-style proof system that is sound and complete with respect to the extended semantics. The logic of the box gives rise to a simple modal logic, and we relate provability in the extended proof system to this modal logic via a completeness theorem, using interpretations over circular definitions, analogous to Solovay’s completeness theorem for GL using arithmetical interpretations. We adapt our proof to a special class of circular definitions as well as to the first-order case.

This paper explores how a semantics for Prior’s infamous connective tonk should be, a connective defined by inference rules that trivialize the logic of a deductive system if that logic is supposed to be transitive. To avoid triviality, one must reject transitivity and in a relatively recent paper, Roy Cook develops a semantics for tonk with non-transitive entailment. However, I show in this paper that a cut-free sequent calculus for tonk - the arguably most natural and simplest deductive system for a non-transitive logic - can neither be complete with respect to Cook’s semantics nor with respect to a semantics with non-transitive entailment based on a semantics for vagueness and transparent truth developed by Cobreros et al. It is argued that the failure to adequately represent tonk is connected with the fact that tonk is not uniquely defined in a cut-free sequent calculus system unless the logic is in addition non-reflexive. To remedy this, the paper develops a semantics with non-transitive and non-reflexive entailment based on the idea that complex formulae are true or false relative to them being assessed as premise or as conclusion.

Some theorists have developed formal approaches to truth that depend on counterexamples to the structural rules of contraction. Here, we study such approaches, with an eye to helping them respond to a certain kind of objection. We define a contractive relative of each noncontractive relation, for use in responding to the objection in question, and we explore one example: the contractive relative of multiplicative-additive affine logic with transparent truth, or maalt.

The collapse models of arithmetic are inconsistent, nontrivial models obtained from ℕ and set out in the Logic of Paradox (LP). They are given a general treatment by Priest (Priest, 2000). Finite collapse models are decidable, and thus axiomatizable, because finite. LP, however, is ill-suited to normal axiomatic reasoning, as it invalidates Modus Ponens, and almost all other usual conditional inferences. I set out a logic, A3, first given by Avron (Avron, 1991), and give a first order axiom system for the finite collapse models. I present some standard arithmetical axioms in addition to a cyclic axiom and prove that these axioms are sound and complete for the cyclic models, reporting a similar result for the heap models. The state of the situation for the each of the kinds of infinite collapse model is, however, left an open question.

In a recent series of papers, I and others have advanced new logical approaches to familiar paradoxes. The key to these approaches is to accept full classical logic, and to accept the principles that cause paradox, while preventing trouble by allowing a certain sort of nontransitivity. Earlier papers have treated paradoxes of truth and vagueness. The present paper will begin to extend the approach to deal with the familiar paradoxes arising in naive set theory, pointing out some of the promises and pitfalls of such an approach.

Many recent writers in the philosophy of mathematics have put great weight on the relative categoricity of the traditional axiomatizations of our foundational theories of arithmetic and set theory (Parsons, 1990; Parsons, 2008, sec. 49; McGee, 1997; Lavine, 1999; Väänänen & Wang, 2014). Another great enterprise in contemporary philosophy of mathematics has been Wright’s and Hale’s project of founding mathematics on abstraction principles (Hale & Wright, 2001; Cook, 2007). In Walsh (2012), it was noted that one traditional abstraction principle, namely Hume’s Principle, had a certain relative categoricity property, which here we term natural relative categoricity. In this paper, we show that most other abstraction principles are not naturally relatively categorical, so that there is in fact a large amount of incompatibility between these two recent trends in contemporary philosophy of mathematics. To better understand the precise demands of relative categoricity in the context of abstraction principles, we compare and contrast these constraints to (i) stability-like acceptability criteria on abstraction principles (cf. Cook, 2012), (ii) the Tarski-Sher logicality requirements on abstraction principles studied by Antonelli (2010b) and Fine (2002), and (iii) supervaluational ideas coming out of the work of Hodes (1984, 1990, 1991).