This paper proves normalisation theorems for intuitionist and classical negative free logic, without and with the operator for definite descriptions. Rules specific to free logic give rise to new kinds of maximal formulas additional to those familiar from standard intuitionist and classical logic. When is added it must be ensured that reduction procedures involving replacements of parameters by terms do not introduce new maximal formulas of higher degree than the ones removed. The problem is solved by a rule that permits restricting these terms in the rules for $\forall $, $\exists $ and to parameters or constants. A restricted subformula property for deductions in systems without is considered. It is improved upon by an alternative formalisation of free logic building on an idea of Jaśkowski’s. In the classical system the rules for require treatment known from normalisation for classical logic with $\lor $ or $\exists $. The philosophical significance of the results is also indicated.

Propositional temporal logic over the real number time flow is finitely axiomatisable, but its first-order counterpart is not recursively axiomatisable. We study the logic that combines the propositional axiomatisation with the usual axioms for first-order logic with identity, and develop an alternative “admissible” semantics for it, showing that it is strongly complete for admissible models over the reals. By contrast there is no recursive axiomatisation of the first-order temporal logic of admissible models whose time flow is the integers, or any scattered linear ordering.

In this paper, we show how to represent a non-Archimedean preference over a set of random quantities by a nonstandard utility function. Non-Archimedean preferences arise when some random quantities have no fair price. Two common situations give rise to non-Archimedean preferences: random quantities whose values must be greater than every real number, and strict preferences between random quantities that are deemed closer in value than every positive real number. We also show how to extend a non-Archimedean preference to a larger set of random quantities. The random quantities that we consider include real-valued random variables, horse lotteries, and acts in the theory of Savage. In addition, we weaken the state-independent utility assumptions made by the existing theories and give conditions under which the utility that represents preference is the expected value of a state-dependent utility with respect to a probability over states.

Bochvar algebras consist of the quasivariety $\mathsf {BCA}$ playing the role of equivalent algebraic semantics for Bochvar (external) logic, a logical formalism introduced by Bochvar [4] in the realm of (weak) Kleene logics. In this paper, we provide an algebraic investigation of the structure of Bochvar algebras. In particular, we prove a representation theorem based on Płonka sums and investigate the lattice of subquasivarieties, showing that Bochvar (external) logic has only one proper extension (apart from classical logic), algebraized by the subquasivariety $\mathsf {NBCA}$ of $\mathsf {BCA}$. Furthermore, we address the problem of (passive) structural completeness ((P)SC) for each of them, showing that $\mathsf {NBCA}$ is SC, while $\mathsf {BCA}$ is not even PSC. Finally, we prove that both $\mathsf {BCA}$ and $\mathsf {NBCA}$ enjoy the amalgamation property (AP).

We investigate whether ordinary quantification over objects is an extensional phenomenon, or rather creates non-extensional contexts; each claim having been propounded by prominent philosophers. It turns out that the question only makes sense relative to a background theory of syntax and semantics (here called a grammar) that goes well beyond the inductive definition of formulas and the recursive definition of satisfaction. Two schemas for building quantificational grammars are developed, one that invariably constructs extensional grammars (in which quantification, in particular, thus behaves extensionally) and another that only generates non-extensional grammars (and in which quantification is responsible for the failure of extensionality). We then ask whether there are reasons to favor one of these grammar schemas over the other, and examine an argument according to which the proper formalization of deictic utterances requires adoption of non-extensional grammars.

This paper initiates the reverse mathematics of social choice theory, studying Arrow’s impossibility theorem and related results including Fishburn’s possibility theorem and the Kirman–Sondermann theorem within the framework of reverse mathematics. We formalise fundamental notions of social choice theory in second-order arithmetic, yielding a definition of countable society which is tractable in ${\mathsf {RCA}}_0$. We then show that the Kirman–Sondermann analysis of social welfare functions can be carried out in ${\mathsf {RCA}}_0$. This approach yields a proof of Arrow’s theorem in ${\mathsf {RCA}}_0$, and thus in $\mathrm {PRA}$, since Arrow’s theorem can be formalised as a $\Pi ^0_1$ sentence. Finally we show that Fishburn’s possibility theorem for countable societies is equivalent to ${\mathsf {ACA}}_0$ over ${\mathsf {RCA}}_0$.

We show that the conceptual distance between any two theories of first-order logic is the same as the generator distance between their Lindenbaum–Tarski algebras of concepts. As a consequence of this, we show that, for any two arbitrary mathematical structures, the generator distance between their meaning algebras (also known as cylindric set algebras) is the same as the conceptual distance between their first-order logic theories. As applications, we give a complete description for the distances between meaning algebras corresponding to structures having at most three elements and show that this small network represents all the possible conceptual distances between complete theories. As a corollary of this, we will see that there are only two non-trivial structures definable on three-element sets up to conceptual equivalence (i.e., up to elementary plus definitional equivalence).

We present a novel treatment of set theory in a four-valued paraconsistent and paracomplete logic, i.e., a logic in which propositions can be both true and false, and neither true nor false. Our approach is a significant departure from previous research in paraconsistent set theory, which has almost exclusively been motivated by a desire to avoid Russell’s paradox and fulfil naive comprehension. Instead, we prioritise setting up a system with a clear ontology of non-classical sets, which can be used to reason informally about incomplete and inconsistent phenomena, and is sufficiently similar to ${\mathrm {ZFC}}$ to enable the development of interesting mathematics.

We propose an axiomatic system ${\mathrm {BZFC}}$, obtained by analysing the ${\mathrm {ZFC}}$-axioms and translating them to a four-valued setting in a careful manner, avoiding many of the obstacles encountered by other attempted formalizations. We introduce the anti-classicality axiom postulating the existence of non-classical sets, and prove a surprising results stating that the existence of a single non-classical set is sufficient to produce any other type of non-classical set.

Our theory is naturally bi-interpretable with ${\mathrm {ZFC}}$, and provides a philosophically satisfying view in which non-classical sets can be seen as a natural extension of classical ones, in a similar way to the non-well-founded sets of Peter Aczel [1].

Finally, we provide an interesting application concerning Tarski semantics, showing that the classical definition of the satisfaction relation yields a logic precisely reflecting the non-classicality in the meta-theory.

Ultrafilters play a significant role in model theory to characterize logics having various compactness and interpolation properties. They also provide a general method to construct extensions of first-order logic having these properties. A main result of this paper is that every class $\Omega $ of uniform ultrafilters generates a $\Delta $-closed logic ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $. ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $ is $\omega $-relatively compact iff some $D\in \Omega $ fails to be $\omega _1$-complete iff ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $ does not contain the quantifier “there are uncountably many.” If $\Omega $ is a set, or if it contains a countably incomplete ultrafilter, then ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $ is not generated by Mostowski cardinality quantifiers. Assuming $\neg 0^\sharp $ or $\neg L^{\mu }$, if $D\in \Omega $ is a uniform ultrafilter over a regular cardinal $\nu $, then every family $\Psi $ of formulas in ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $ with $|\Phi |\leq \nu $ satisfies the compactness theorem. In particular, if $\Omega $ is a proper class of uniform ultrafilters over regular cardinals, ${\mathcal {L}}_\Omega $ is compact.

Purity is known as an ideal of proof that restricts a proof to notions belonging to the ‘content’ of the theorem. In this paper, our main interest is to develop a conception of purity for formal (natural deduction) proofs. We develop two new notions of purity: one based on an ontological notion of the content of a theorem, and one based on the notions of surrogate ontological content and structural content. From there, we characterize which (classical) first-order natural deduction proofs of a mathematical theorem are pure. Formal proofs that refer to the ontological content of a theorem will be called ‘fully ontologically pure’. Formal proofs that refer to a surrogate ontological content of a theorem will be called ‘secondarily ontologically pure’, because they preserve the structural content of a theorem. We will use interpretations between theories to develop a proof-theoretic criterion that guarantees secondary ontological purity for formal proofs.

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.

Orthomodular logic is a weakening of quantum logic in the sense of Birkhoff and von Neumann. Orthomodular logic is shown to be a nonlinear noncommutative logic. Sequents are given a physically motivated semantics that is consistent with exactly one semantics for propositional formulas that use negation, conjunction, and implication. In particular, implication must be interpreted as the Sasaki arrow, which satisfies the deduction theorem in this logic. As an application, this deductive system is extended to two systems of predicate logic: the first is sound for Takeuti’s quantum set theory, and the second is sound for a variant of Weaver’s quantum logic.

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).

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.

We develop a method for showing that various modal logics that are valid in their countably generated canonical Kripke frames must also be valid in their uncountably generated ones. This is applied to many systems, including the logics of finite width, and a broader class of multimodal logics of ‘finite achronal width’ that are introduced here.

In this paper, I develop an algorithmic impossible-worlds model of belief and knowledge that provides a middle ground between models that entail that everyone is logically omniscient and those that are compatible with even the most egregious kinds of logical incompetence. In outline, the model entails that an agent believes (knows) $\phi $ just in case she can easily (and correctly) compute that $\phi $ is true and thus has the capacity to make her actions depend on whether $\phi $. The model thereby captures the standard view that belief and knowledge ground are constitutively connected to dispositions to act. As I explain, the model improves upon standard algorithmic models developed by Parikh, Halpern, Moses, Vardi, and Duc, among other ways, by integrating them into an impossible-worlds framework. The model also avoids some important disadvantages of recent candidate middle-ground models based on dynamic epistemic logic or step logic, and it can subsume their most important advantages.

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.

The aim of this paper is to provide a complete Natural Kind Semantics for an Essentialist Theory of Kinds. The theory is formulated in two-sorted first order monadic modal logic with identity. The natural kind semantics is based on Rudolf Willes Theory of Concept Lattices. The semantics is then used to explain several consequences of the theory, including results about the specificity (species–genus) relations between kinds, the definitions of kinds in terms of genera and specific differences and the existence of negative kinds. First, I show under which conditions the Hierarchy principle, which has been subjected to counterexamples in the literature, holds. I also show that a different principle about the species–genus relations between kinds, namely Kant’s Law, follows from the essentialist theory. Second, I introduce two new operations for kinds and show that they can be used to provide traditional definitions of kinds in terms of genera and specific differences. Finally, I show that these operations of specific difference induce, for each kind, a uniquely specified contrary kind and a uniquely specified subcontrary kind, which can be used as semantic values for non-classical predicate negations of kind terms.