The aim of this paper is to show what sorts of logics are required by externalist and internalist accounts of the meanings of natural kind nouns. These logics give us a new perspective from which to evaluate the respective positions in the externalist--internalist debate about the meanings of such nouns. The two main claims of the paper are the following: first, that adequate logics for internalism and externalism about natural kind nouns are second-order logics; second, that an internalist second-order logic is a free logic—a second order logic free of existential commitments for natural kind nouns, while an externalist second-order logic is not free of existential commitments for natural kind nouns—it is existentially committed.

Three notions of definability in multimodal logic are considered. Two are analogous to the notions of explicit definability and implicit definability introduced by Beth in the context of first-order logic. However, while by Beth’s theorem the two types of definability are equivalent for first-order logic, such an equivalence does not hold for multimodal logics. A third notion of definability, reducibility, is introduced; it is shown that in multimodal logics, explicit definability is equivalent to the combination of implicit definability and reducibility. The three notions of definability are characterized semantically using (modal) algebras. The use of algebras, rather than frames, is shown to be necessary for these characterizations.

I argue that recent defenses of the view that in 1936 Tarski required all interpretations of a language to share one same domain of quantification are based on misinterpretations of Tarski’s texts. In particular, I rebut some criticisms of my earlier attack on the fixed-domain exegesis and I offer a more detailed report of the textual evidence on the issue than in my earlier work. I also offer new considerations on subsisting issues of interpretation concerning Tarski’s views on the logical correctness of certain omega-arguments, on the Tarskian proof that Etchemendy took to be modal and fallacious, and on Tarski’s appeals to the “common concept of consequence”.

In this paper we present a sequent calculus for the modal propositional logic GL (the logic of provability) obtained by means of the tree-hypersequent method, a method in which the metalinguistic strength of hypersequents is improved, so that we can simulate trees shapes. We prove that this sequent calculus is sound and complete with respect to the Hilbert-style system GL, that it is contraction free and cut free and that its logical and modal rules are invertible. No explicit semantic element is used in the sequent calculus and all the results are proved in a purely syntactic way.

In intuitionistic analysis, a subset of a Polish space like ℝ or is called positively Borel if and only if it is an open subset of the space or a closed subset of the space or the result of forming either the countable union or the countable intersection of an infinite sequence of (earlier constructed) positively Borel subsets of the space. The operation of taking the complement is absent from this inductive definition, and, in fact, the complement of a positively Borel set is not always positively Borel itself (see Veldman, 2008a). The main result of Veldman (2008a) is that, assuming Brouwer's Continuity Principle and an Axiom of Countable Choice, one may prove that the hierarchy formed by the positively Borel sets is genuinely growing: every level of the hierarchy contains sets that do not occur at any lower level. The purpose of the present paper is a different one: we want to explore the truly remarkable fine structure of the hierarchy. Brouwer's Continuity Principle again is our main tool. A second axiom proposed by Brouwer, his Thesis on Bars is also used, but only incidentally.

Cantor’s theory of cardinal numbers offers a way to generalize arithmetic from finite sets to infinite sets using the notion of one-to-one association between two sets. As is well known, all countable infinite sets have the same ‘size’ in this account, namely that of the cardinality of the natural numbers. However, throughout the history of reflections on infinity another powerful intuition has played a major role: if a collection A is properly included in a collection B then the ‘size’ of A should be less than the ‘size’ of B (part–whole principle). This second intuition was not developed mathematically in a satisfactory way until quite recently. In this article I begin by reviewing the contributions of some thinkers who argued in favor of the assignment of different sizes to infinite collections of natural numbers (Thabit ibn Qurra, Grosseteste, Maignan, Bolzano). Then, I review some recent mathematical developments that generalize the part–whole principle to infinite sets in a coherent fashion (Katz, Benci, Di Nasso, Forti). Finally, I show how these new developments are important for a proper evaluation of a number of positions in philosophy of mathematics which argue either for the inevitability of the Cantorian notion of infinite number (Gödel) or for the rational nature of the Cantorian generalization as opposed to that, based on the part–whole principle, envisaged by Bolzano (Kitcher).

We examine the closure conditions of the probabilistic consequence relation of Hawthorne and Makinson, specifically the outstanding question of completeness in terms of Horn rules, of their proposed (finite) set of rules O. We show that on the contrary no such finite set of Horn rules exists, though we are able to specify an infinite set which is complete.

The question of whether knowledge is definable in terms of belief, which has played an important role in epistemology for the last 50 years, is studied here in the framework of epistemic and doxastic logics. Three notions of definability are considered: explicit definability, implicit definability, and reducibility, where explicit definability is equivalent to the combination of implicit definability and reducibility. It is shown that if knowledge satisfies any set of axioms contained in S5, then it cannot be explicitly defined in terms of belief. S5 knowledge can be implicitly defined by belief, but not reduced to it. On the other hand, S4.4 knowledge and weaker notions of knowledge cannot be implicitly defined by belief, but can be reduced to it by defining knowledge as true belief. It is also shown that S5 knowledge cannot be reduced to belief and justification, provided that there are no axioms that involve both belief and justification.

It is known that propositional relevant logics can be conservatively extended by the addition of a Heyting (intuitionistic) implication connective. We show that this same conservativity holds for a range of first-order relevant logics with strong identity axioms, using an adaptation of Fine’s stratified model theory. For systems without identity, the question of conservatively adding Heyting implication is thereby reduced to the question of conservatively adding the axioms for identity. Some results in this direction are also obtained. The conservative presence of Heyting implication allows the development of an alternative model theory for quantified relevant logics.

The paper addresses what we see as the four major issues in logic. The overriding issue is that of the choice of logic. We start with some discussion of the preliminary issue of whether there is such a ‘one true logic,’ but we reserve the main discussion for the first issue of ‘classical logic versus non-classical logic.’ Here, we discuss the role of meaning and truth, the relation between classical logic and classical negation, and whether and, if so, how classical logic should reside at the base world. Given the argument in favor of an overall use of non-classical logic, the second issue is that of the choice of non-classical logic. Brady’s logic MC of meaning containment is argued for, with some comparison made with other relevant logics. For the remaining two issues, we make a case for relevant deduction, in comparison with classical deduction, and we explore possibilities for the appropriate meta-logic, comparing classical and non-classical approaches.

Relevance logics are known to be sound and complete for relational semantics with a ternary accessibility relation. This paper investigates the problem of adequacy with respect to special kinds of dynamic semantics (i.e., proper relation algebras and relevant families of relations). We prove several soundness results here. We also prove the completeness of a certain positive fragment of R as well as of the first-degree fragment of relevance logics. These results show that some core ideas are shared between relevance logics and relation algebras. Some details of certain incompleteness results, however, pinpoint where relevance logics and relation algebras diverge. To carry out these semantic investigations, we define a new tableaux formalization and new sequent calculi (with the single cut rule admissible) for various relevance logics.

The Aristotelian syllogistic cannot account for the validity of certain inferences involving relational facts. In this paper, we investigate the prospects for providing a relational syllogistic. We identify several fragments based on (a) whether negation is permitted on all nouns, including those in the subject of a sentence; and (b) whether the subject noun phrase may contain a relative clause. The logics we present are extensions of the classical syllogistic, and we pay special attention to the question of whether reductio ad absurdum is needed. Thus our main goal is to derive results on the existence (or nonexistence) of syllogistic proof systems for relational fragments. We also determine the computational complexity of all our fragments.

The paper offers a matrix-based logic (relevant matrix quantum physics) for propositions which seems suitable as an underlying logic for empirical sciences and especially for quantum physics. This logic is motivated by two criteria which serve to clean derivations of classical logic from superfluous redundancies and uninformative complexities. It distinguishes those valid derivations (inferences) of classical logic which contain superfluous redundancies and complexities and are in this sense “irrelevant” from those which are “relevant” or “nonredundant” in the sense of allowing only the most informative consequences in the derivations. The latter derivations are strictly valid in RMQ, whereas the former are only materially valid. RMQ is a decidable matrix calculus which possesses a semantics and has the finite model property. It is shown in the paper how RMQ by its strictly valid derivations can avoid the difficulties with commensurability, distributivity, and Bell's inequalities when it is applied to quantum physics.

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).

A number of people have proposed that we should be pluralists about logic, but there are several things this can mean. Are there versions of logical pluralism that are both high on the interest scale and also true? After discussing some forms of pluralism that seem either insufficiently interesting or quite unlikely to be true, the paper suggests a new form which might be both interesting and true; however, the scope of the pluralism that it allows logic is extremely narrow.

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.

We introduce partial Esakia morphisms, well partial Esakia morphisms, and strong partial Esakia morphisms between Esakia spaces and show that they provide the dual description of (∧, →) homomorphisms, (∧, → , 0) homomorphisms, and (∧ , → , ∨) homomorphisms between Heyting algebras, thus establishing a generalization of Esakia duality. This yields an algebraic characterization of Zakharyaschev’s subreductions, cofinal subreductions, dense subreductions, and the closed domain condition. As a consequence, we obtain a new simplified proof (which is algebraic in nature) of Zakharyaschev’s theorem that each intermediate logic can be axiomatized by canonical formulas.

Towards NonBeing (Priest, 2005) gives a noneist account of the semantics of intentional operators and predicates. The semantics for intentional operators are modelled on those for the □ in normal modal logics. In this paper an alternative semantics, modelled on neighborhood semantics for □, is given and assessed.

In Parts of Classes (1991) and Mathematics Is Megethology (1993) David Lewis defends both the innocence of plural quantification and of mereology. However, he himself claims that the innocence of mereology is different from that of plural reference, where reference to some objects does not require the existence of a single entity picking them out as a whole. In the case of plural quantification “we have many things, in no way do we mention one thing that is the many taken together”. Instead, in the mereological case: “we have many things, we do mention one thing that is the many taken together, but this one thing is nothing different from the many” (Lewis, 1991, p. 87). The aim of the paper is to argue that—for a certain use of mereology, weaker than Lewis’ one—an innocence thesis similar to that of plural reference is defensible. To give a precise account of plural reference, we use the idea of plural choice. We then propose a virtual theory of mereology in which the role of individuals is played by plural choices of atoms.

We present a formal system, E, which provides a faithful model of the proofs in Euclid’s Elements, including the use of diagrammatic reasoning.