Spectrum Exchangeability, Sx, is an irrelevance principle of Pure Inductive Logic, and arguably the most natural (but not the only) extension of Atom Exchangeability to polyadic languages. It has been shown1 that all probability functions which satisfy Sx are comprised of a mixture of two essential types of probability functions; heterogeneous and homogeneous functions. We determine the theory of Spectrum Exchangeability, which for a fixed language L is the set of sentences of L which must be assigned probability 1 by every probability function satisfying Sx, by examining separately the theories of heterogeneity and homogeneity. We find that the theory of Sx is equal to the theory of finite structures, i.e., those sentences true in all finite structures for L, and it emerges that Sx is inconsistent with the principle of Super-Regularity (Universal Certainty). As a further consequence we are able to characterize those probability functions which satisfy Sx and the Finite Values Property.

Choices rarely deal with certainties; and, where assertoric logic and modal logic are insufficient, those seeking to be reasonable turn to one or more things called “probability.” These things typically have a shared mathematical form, which is an arithmetic construct. The construct is often felt to be unsatisfactory for various reasons. A more general construct is that of a preordering, which may even be incomplete, allowing for cases in which there is no known probability relation between two propositions or between two events. Previous discussion of incomplete preorderings has been as if incidental, with researchers focusing upon preorderings for which quantifications are possible. This article presents formal axioms for the more general case. Challenges peculiar to some specific interpretations of the nature of probability are brought to light in the context of these propositions. A qualitative interpretation is offered for probability differences that are often taken to be quantified. A generalization of Bayesian updating is defended without dependence upon coherence. Qualitative hypothesis testing is offered as a possible alternative in cases for which quantitative hypothesis testing is shown to be unsuitable.

This paper introduces theories for arithmetical quasi-inductive definitions (Burgess, 1986) as it has been done for first-order monotone and nonmonotone inductive ones. After displaying the basic axiomatic framework, we provide some initial result in the proof theoretic bounds line of research (the upper one being given in terms of a theory of sets extending Kripke–Platek set theory).

This paper explores relational syllogistic logics, a family of logical systems related to reasoning about relations in extensions of the classical syllogistic. These are all decidable logical systems. We prove completeness theorems and complexity results for a natural subfamily of relational syllogistic logics, parametrized by constructors for terms and for sentences.

We introduce a new simple first-order framework for theories whose objects are well-orderings (lists). A system ALT (axiomatic list theory) is presented and shown to be equiconsistent with ZFC (Zermelo Fraenkel Set Theory with the Axiom of Choice). The theory sheds new light on the power set axiom and on Gödel’s axiom of constructibility. In list theory there are strong arguments favoring Gödel’s axiom, while a bare analogon of the set theoretic power set axiom looks artificial. In fact, there is a natural and attractive modification of ALT where every object is constructible and countable. In order to substantiate our foundational interest in lists, we also compare sets and lists from the perspective of finite objects, arguing that lists are, from a certain point of view, conceptually simpler than sets.

We prove strong completeness results for some modal logics with the universal modality, with respect to their topological semantics over 0-dimensional dense-in-themselves metric spaces. We also use failure of compactness to show that, for some languages and spaces, no standard modal deductive system is strongly complete.

The seventeenth century can be viewed as an era of (closely related) innovation in the formal and natural sciences and of paradigmatic diversity in philosophy (due to the coexistence of at least the humanist, the late scholastic, and the early modern tradition). Within this environment, the present study focuses on scholastic logic and, in particular, syllogistic. In seventeenth-century scholastic logic two different approaches to logic can be identified, one represented by the Dominicans Báñez, Poinsot, and Comas del Brugar, the other represented by the Jesuits Hurtado, Arriaga, Oviedo, and Compton. These two groups of authors can be contrasted in three prominent features. First, in the role of the theory of validity, which is either a common basis for all particular theories (in this case, sentential logic and syllogistic), or a set of observations regarding a particular theory (in this case, syllogistic). Second, in the view of syllogistic, which is either an implication of a general theory of validity and a semantics of terms, or an algebra of structured objects. Third, in the role of the scholastic analysis of language in terms of suppositio, which either is a semantic underpinning of syllogistic, or it is replaced by a semantics of propositions.

Scoring rules measure the deviation between a forecast, which assigns degrees of confidence to various events, and reality. Strictly proper scoring rules have the property that for any forecast, the mathematical expectation of the score of a forecast p by the lights of p is strictly better than the mathematical expectation of any other forecast q by the lights of p. Forecasts need not satisfy the axioms of the probability calculus, but Predd et al. [9] have shown that given a finite sample space and any strictly proper additive and continuous scoring rule, the score for any forecast that does not satisfy the axioms of probability is strictly dominated by the score for some probabilistically consistent forecast. Recently, this result has been extended to non-additive continuous scoring rules. In this paper, a condition weaker than continuity is given that suffices for the result, and the condition is proved to be optimal.

For relevant logics, the admissibility of the rule of proof $\gamma $ has played a significant historical role in the development of relevant logics. For first-order logics, however, there have been only a handful of $\gamma $-admissibility proofs for a select few logics. Here we show that, for each logic L of a wide range of propositional relevant logics for which excluded middle is valid (with fusion and the Ackermann truth constant), the first-order extensions QL and LQ admit $\gamma $. Specifically, these are particular “conventionally normal” extensions of the logic $\mathbf {G}^{g,d}$, which is the least propositional relevant logic (with the usual relational semantics) that admits $\gamma $ by the method of normal models. We also note the circumstances in which our results apply to logics without fusion and the Ackermann truth constant.

The 3-valued paraconsistent logic Ciore was developed by Carnielli, Marcos and de Amo under the name LFI2, in the study of inconsistent databases from the point of view of logics of formal inconsistency (LFIs). They also considered a first-order version of Ciore called LFI2*. The logic Ciore enjoys extreme features concerning propagation and retropropagation of the consistency operator: a formula is consistent if and only if some of its subformulas is consistent. In addition, Ciore is algebraizable in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi. On the other hand, the logic LFI2* satisfies a somewhat counter-intuitive property: the universal and the existential quantifier are inter-definable by means of the paraconsistent negation, as it happens in classical first-order logic with respect to the classical negation. This feature seems to be unnatural, given that both quantifiers have the classical meaning in LFI2*, and that this logic does not satisfy the De Morgan laws with respect to its paraconsistent negation. The first goal of the present article is to introduce a first-order version of Ciore (which we call QCiore) preserving the spirit of Ciore, that is, without introducing unexpected relationships between the quantifiers. The second goal of the article is to adapt to QCiore the partial structures semantics for the first-order paraconsistent logic LPT1 introduced by Coniglio and Silvestrini, which generalizes the semantic notion of quasi-truth considered by Mikeberg, da Costa and Chuaqui. Finally, some important results of classical Model Theory are obtained for this logic, such as Robinson’s joint consistency theorem, amalgamation and interpolation. Although we focus on QCiore, this framework can be adapted to other 3-valued first-order LFIs.

A one-premiss rule is said to be archetypal for a consequence relation when not only is the conclusion of any application of the rule a consequence (according to that relation) of the premiss, but whenever one formula has another as a consequence, these formulas are respectively equivalent to a premiss and a conclusion of some application of the rule. We are concerned here with the consequence relation of classical propositional logic and with the task of extending the above notion of archetypality to rules with more than one premiss, and providing an informative characterization of the set of rules falling under the more general notion.

The injective version of Cantor’s theorem appears in full second-order logic as the inconsistency of the abstraction principle, Frege’s Basic Law V (BLV), an inconsistency easily shown using Russell’s paradox. This incompatibility is akin to others—most notably that of a (Dedekind) infinite universe with the Nuisance Principle (NP) discussed by neo-Fregean philosophers of mathematics. This paper uses the Burali–Forti paradox to demonstrate this incompatibility, and another closely related, without appeal to principles related to the axiom of choice—a result hitherto unestablished. It discusses both the general interest of this result, its interest to neo-Fregean philosophy of mathematics, and the potential significance of the Burali–Fortian method of proof.

This paper is a continuation of Amidei, Pianigiani, San Mauro, Simi, & Sorbi (2016), where we have introduced the quasidialectical systems, which are abstract deductive systems designed to provide, in line with Lakatos’ views, a formalization of trial and error mathematics more adherent to the real mathematical practice of revision than Magari’s original dialectical systems. In this paper we prove that the two models of deductive systems (dialectical systems and quasidialectical systems) have in some sense the same information content, in that they represent two classes of sets (the dialectical sets and the quasidialectical sets, respectively), which have the same Turing degrees (namely, the computably enumerable Turing degrees), and the same enumeration degrees (namely, the ${\rm{\Pi }}_1^0$ enumeration degrees). Nonetheless, dialectical sets and quasidialectical sets do not coincide. Even restricting our attention to the so-called loopless quasidialectical sets, we show that the quasidialectical sets properly extend the dialectical sets. As both classes consist of ${\rm{\Delta }}_2^0$ sets, the extent to which the two classes differ is conveniently measured using the Ershov hierarchy: indeed, the dialectical sets are ω-computably enumerable (close inspection also shows that there are dialectical sets which do not lie in any finite level; and in every finite level n ≥ 2 of the Ershov hierarchy there is a dialectical set which does not lie in the previous level); on the other hand, the quasidialectical sets spread out throughout all classes of the hierarchy (close inspection shows that for every ordinal notation a of a nonzero computable ordinal, there is a quasidialectical set lying in ${\rm{\Sigma }}_a^{ - 1}$ , but in none of the preceding levels).

The book Das Interpretationsproblem der Formalisierten Zahlentheorie und ihre Formale Widerspruchsfreiheit by Erik Stenius published in 1952 contains a consistency proof for infinite ω-arithmetic based on a semantical interpretation. Despite the proof’s reference to semantics the truth definition is in fact equivalent to a syntactical derivability or reduction condition. Based on this reduction condition Stenius proves that the complexity of formulas in a derivation can be limited by the complexity of the conclusion. This independent result can also be proved by cut elimination for ω-arithmetic which was done by Schütte in 1951.

In this paper we interpret the syntactic reduction in Stenius’ work as a method for cut elimination based on invertibility of the logical rules. Through this interpretation the constructivity of Stenius’ proof becomes apparent. This improvement was explicitly requested from Stenius by Paul Bernays in private correspondence (In a letter from Bernays begun on the 19th of September 1952 (Stenius & Bernays, 1951–75)). Bernays, who took a deep interest in Stenius’ manuscript, applied the described method in a proof Herbrand’s theorem. In this paper we prove Herbrand’s theorem, as an application of Stenius’ work, based on lecture notes of Bernays (Bernays, 1961). The main result completely resolves Bernays’ suggestions for improvement by eliminating references to Stenius’ semantics and by showing the constructive nature of the proof. A comparison with Schütte’s cut elimination proof shows how Stenius’ simplification of the reduction of universal cut formulas, which in Schütte’s proof requires duplication and repositioning of the cuts, shifts the problematic case of reduction to implications.

In 1978, Yu. F. Borisov presented an axiom system using a few basic assumptions and four explicit axioms, the fourth being a formulation of the relativity principle, and he demonstrated that this axiom system had (up to choice of units) only two models: a relativistic one in which worldview transformations are Poincaré transformations and a classical one in which they are Galilean. In this paper, we reformulate Borisov’s original four axioms within an intuitively simple, but strictly formal, first-order logic framework, and convert his basic background assumptions into explicit axioms. Instead of assuming that the structure of physical quantities is the field of real numbers, we assume only that they form an ordered field. This allows us to investigate how Borisov’s theorem depends on the structure of quantities.

We demonstrate (as our main contribution) how to construct Euclidean, Galilean, and Poincaré models of Borisov’s axiom system over every non-Archimedean field. We also demonstrate the existence of an infinite descending chain of models and transformation groups in each of these three cases, something that is not possible over Archimedean fields.

As an application, we note that there is a model of Borisov’s axioms that satisfies the relativity principle, and in which the worldview transformations are Euclidean isometries. Over the field of reals it is easy to eliminate this model using natural axioms concerning time’s arrow and the absence of instantaneous motion. In the case of non-Archimedean fields, however, the Euclidean isometries appear intrinsically as worldview transformations in models of Borisov’s axioms, and neither the assumption of time’s arrow, nor the rejection of instantaneous motion, can eliminate them.

Three-valued accounts of conditionals frequently promise (a) to conform to the probabilistic view that conditionals are evaluated by conditional probabilities, and (b) to yield a plausible account of compounds of conditionals. However, McGee (1981) shows that probabilistic validity, the conception of validity most naturally associated with the probabilistic view, cannot be characterized by a finite matrix. Adams (1995) indicates a further generalization of this result. Nevertheless, Adams (1986) provides a description of probabilistic validity in three-valued terms by going beyond the standard framework. Yet the language Adams considers is severely restricted: it does not contain compounds of conditionals. Thus, a natural question arises: Is there a plausible three-valued account of compounds of conditionals which agrees with probabilistic validity on the restricted language? In this note, I develop a general framework in which to address this question. The answer will be negative.

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.

Hyperlogic is a hyperintensional system designed to regiment metalogical claims (e.g., “Intuitionistic logic is correct” or “The law of excluded middle holds”) into the object language, including within embedded environments such as attitude reports and counterfactuals. This paper is the first of a two-part series exploring the logic of hyperlogic. This part presents a minimal logic of hyperlogic and proves its completeness. It consists of two interdefined axiomatic systems: one for classical consequence (truth preservation under a classical interpretation of the connectives) and one for “universal” consequence (truth preservation under any interpretation). The sequel to this paper explores stronger logics that are sound and complete over various restricted classes of models as well as languages with hyperintensional operators.

Kolmogorov conditionalization is a strategy for updating credences based on propositions that have initial probability 0. I explore the connection between Kolmogorov conditionalization and Dutch books. Previous discussions of the connection rely crucially upon a factivity assumption: they assume that the agent updates credences based on true propositions. The factivity assumption discounts cases of misplaced certainty, i.e., cases where the agent invests credence 1 in a falsehood. Yet misplaced certainty arises routinely in scientific and philosophical applications of Bayesian decision theory. I prove a non-factive Dutch book theorem and converse Dutch book theorem for Kolmogorov conditionalization. The theorems do not rely upon the factivity assumption, so they establish that Kolmogorov conditionalization has unique pragmatic virtues that persist even in cases of misplaced certainty.

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.