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.

The present note was prompted by Weber’s approach to proving Cantor’s theorem, i.e., the claim that the cardinality of the power set of a set is always greater than that of the set itself. While I do not contest that his proof succeeds, my point is that he neglects the possibility that by similar methods it can be shown also that no non-empty set satisfies Cantor’s theorem. In this paper unrestricted abstraction based on a cut free Gentzen type sequential calculus will be employed to prove both results. In view of the connection between Priest’s three-valued logic of paradox and cut free Gentzen calculi this, a fortiori, has an impact on any paraconsistent set theory built on Priest’s logic of paradox.

Two famous negative results about da Costa’s paraconsistent logic ${\mathscr {C}}_1$ (the failure of the Lindenbaum–Tarski process [44] and its non-algebraizability [39]) have placed ${\mathscr {C}}_1$ seemingly as an exception to the scope of Abstract Algebraic Logic (AAL). In this paper we undertake a thorough AAL study of da Costa’s logic ${\mathscr {C}}_1$ . On the one hand, we strengthen the negative results about ${\mathscr {C}}_1$ by proving that it does not admit any algebraic semantics whatsoever in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi (a weaker notion than algebraizability also introduced in the monograph [6]). On the other hand, ${\mathscr {C}}_1$ is a protoalgebraic logic satisfying a Deduction-Detachment Theorem (DDT). We then extend our AAL study to some paraconsistent axiomatic extensions of ${\mathscr {C}}_1$ covered in the literature. We prove that for extensions ${\mathcal {S}}$ such as ${\mathcal {C}ilo}$ [26], every algebra in ${\mathsf {Alg}}^*({\mathcal {S}})$ contains a Boolean subalgebra, and for extensions ${\mathcal {S}}$ such as , , or [16, 53], every subdirectly irreducible algebra in ${\mathsf {Alg}}^*({\mathcal {S}})$ has cardinality at most 3. We also characterize the quasivariety ${\mathsf {Alg}}^*({\mathcal {S}})$ and the intrinsic variety $\mathbb {V}({\mathcal {S}})$ , with , , and .

From the interaction among areas such as Computer Science, Formal Logic, and Automated Deduction arises an important new subject called Logic Programming. This has been used continuously in the theoretical study and practical applications in various fields of Artificial Intelligence. After the emergence of a wide variety of non-classical logics and the understanding of the limitations presented by first-order classical logic, it became necessary to consider logic programming based on other types of reasoning in addition to classical reasoning. A type of reasoning that has been well studied is the paraconsistent, that is, the reasoning that tolerates contradictions. However, although there are many paraconsistent logics with different types of semantics, their application to logic programming is more delicate than it first appears, requiring an in-depth study of what can or cannot be transferred directly from classical first-order logic to other types of logic.

Based on studies of Tarcisio Rodrigues on the foundations of Paraconsistent Logic Programming (2010) for some Logics of Formal Inconsistency (LFIs), this thesis intends to resume the research of Rodrigues and place it in the specific context of LFIs with three- and four-valued semantics. This kind of logics are interesting from the computational point of view, as presented by Luiz Silvestrini in his Ph.D. thesis entitled “A new approach to the concept of quase-truth” (2011), and by Marcelo Coniglio and Martín Figallo in the article “Hilbert-style presentations of two logics associated to tetravalent modal algebras” [Studia Logica (2012)]. Based on original techniques, this study aims to define well-founded systems of paraconsistent logic programming based on well-known logics, in contrast to the ad hoc approaches to this question found in the literature.

Abstract prepared by Kleidson Êglicio Carvalho da Silva Oliveira.

E-mail: [email protected]

URL: http://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/322632

Minimally inconsistent LP (MiLP) is a nonmonotonic paraconsistent logic based on Graham Priest’s logic of paradox (LP). Unlike LP, MiLP purports to recover, in consistent situations, all of classical reasoning. The present paper conducts a proof-theoretic analysis of MiLP. I highlight certain properties of this logic, introduce a simple sequent system for it, and establish soundness and completeness results. In addition, I show how to use my proof system in response to a criticism of this logic put forward by J. C. Beall.

The purpose of this thesis is to develop a paraconsistent Model Theory. The basis for such a theory was launched by Walter Carnielli, Marcelo Esteban Coniglio, Rodrigo Podiack, and Tarcísio Rodrigues in the article ‘On the Way to a Wider Model Theory: Completeness Theorems for First-Order Logics of Formal Inconsistency’ [The Review of Symbolic Logic, vol. 7 (2014)].

Naturally, a complete theory cannot be fully developed in a single work. Indeed, the goal of this work is to show that a paraconsistent Model Theory is a sound and worthy possibility. The pursuit of this goal is divided in three tasks: The first one is to give the theory a philosophical meaning. The second one is to transpose as many results from the classical theory to the new one as possible. The third one is to show an application of the theory to practical science.

The response to the first task is a Paraconsistent Reasoning System. The start point is that paraconsistency is an epistemological concept. The pursuit of a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of paraconsistency from this point of view leads to a reasoning system based on the Logics of Formal Inconsistency. Models are regarded as states of knowledge and the concept of isomorphism is reformulated so as to give raise to a new concept that preserves a portion of the whole knowledge of each state. Based on this, a notion of refinement is created which may occur from inside or from outside the state.

In order to respond to the second task, two important classical results, namely the Omitting Types Theorem and Craig’s Interpolation Theorem are shown to hold in the new system and it is also shown that, if classical results in general are to hold in a paraconsistent system, then such a system should be in essence how it was developed here.

Finally, the response to the third task is a proposal of what a Paraconsistent Logic Programming may be. For that, the basis for a paraconsistent PROLOG is settled in the light of the ideas developed so far.

Abstract prepared by Bruno Costa Coscarelli.

E-mail: [email protected]

URL: http://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/331697

In this paper we extend to non-classical set theories the standard strategy of proving independence using Boolean-valued models. This extension is provided by means of a new technique that, combining algebras (by taking their product), is able to provide product-algebra-valued models of set theories. In this paper we also provide applications of this new technique by showing that: (1) we can import the classical independence results to non-classical set theory (as an example we prove the independence of $\mathsf {CH}$); and (2) we can provide new independence results. We end by discussing the role of non-classical algebra-valued models for the debate between universists and multiversists and by arguing that non-classical models should be included as legitimate members of the multiverse.

In this article, I provide Urquhart-style semilattice semantics for three connexive logics in an implication-negation language (I call these “pure theories of connexive implication”). The systems semantically characterized include the implication-negation fragment of a connexive logic of Wansing, a relevant connexive logic recently developed proof-theoretically by Francez, and an intermediate system that is novel to this article. Simple proofs of soundness and completeness are given and the semantics is used to establish various facts about the systems (e.g., that two of the systems have the variable sharing property). I emphasize the intuitive content of the semantics and discuss how natural informational considerations underly each of the examined systems.

Quantum set theory (QST) and topos quantum theory (TQT) are two long running projects in the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (QM) that share a great deal of conceptual and technical affinity. Most pertinently, both approaches attempt to resolve some of the conceptual difficulties surrounding QM by reformulating parts of the theory inside of nonclassical mathematical universes, albeit with very different internal logics. We call such mathematical universes, together with those mathematical and logical structures within them that are pertinent to the physical interpretation, ‘Q-worlds’. Here, we provide a unifying framework that allows us to (i) better understand the relationship between different Q-worlds, and (ii) define a general method for transferring concepts and results between TQT and QST, thereby significantly increasing the expressive power of both approaches. Along the way, we develop a novel connection to paraconsistent logic and introduce a new class of structures that have significant implications for recent work on paraconsistent set theory.

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.

This essay discusses rules and semantic clauses relating to Substitution—Leibniz’s law in the conjunctive-implicational form $s\dot{ = }t \wedge A\left( s \right) \to A\left( t \right)$—as these are put forward in Priest’s books In Contradiction and An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is. The stated rules and clauses are shown to be too weak in some cases and too strong in others. New ones are presented and shown to be correct. Justification for the various rules is probed and it is argued that Substitution ought to fail.

We will present a three-valued consequence relation for metainferences, called CM, defined through ST and TS, two well known substructural consequence relations for inferences. While ST recovers every classically valid inference, it invalidates some classically valid metainferences. While CM works as ST at the inferential level, it also recovers every classically valid metainference. Moreover, CM can be safely expanded with a transparent truth predicate. Nevertheless, CM cannot recapture every classically valid meta-metainference. We will afterwards develop a hierarchy of consequence relations CMn for metainferences of level n (for 1 ≤ n < ω). Each CMn recovers every metainference of level n or less, and can be nontrivially expanded with a transparent truth predicate, but cannot recapture every classically valid metainferences of higher levels. Finally, we will present a logic CMω, based on the hierarchy of logics CMn, that is fully classical, in the sense that every classically valid metainference of any level is valid in it. Moreover, CMω can be nontrivially expanded with a transparent truth predicate.

In some recent articles, Cobreros, Egré, Ripley, & van Rooij have defended the idea that abandoning transitivity may lead to a solution to the trouble caused by semantic paradoxes. For that purpose, they develop the Strict-Tolerant approach, which leads them to entertain a nontransitive theory of truth, where the structural rule of Cut is not generally valid. However, that Cut fails in general in the target theory of truth does not mean that there are not certain safe instances of Cut involving semantic notions. In this article we intend to meet the challenge of answering how to regain all the safe instances of Cut, in the language of the theory, making essential use of a unary recovery operator. To fulfill this goal, we will work within the so-called Goodship Project, which suggests that in order to have nontrivial naïve theories it is sufficient to formulate the corresponding self-referential sentences with suitable biconditionals. Nevertheless, a secondary aim of this article is to propose a novel way to carry this project out, showing that the biconditionals in question can be totally classical. In the context of this article, these biconditionals will be essentially used in expressing the self-referential sentences and, thus, as a collateral result of our work we will prove that none of the recoveries expected of the target theory can be nontrivially achieved if self-reference is expressed through identities.

The operations of expansion and refinement on nondeterministic matrices (Nmatrices) are composed to form a new operation called rexpansion. Properties of this operation are investigated, together with their effects on the induced consequence relations. Using rexpansions, a semantic method for obtaining conservative extensions of (N)matrix-defined logics is introduced and applied to fragments of the classical two-valued matrix, as well as to other many-valued matrices and Nmatrices. The main application of this method is the construction and investigation of truth-preserving ¬-paraconsistent conservative extensions of Gödel fuzzy logic, in which ¬ has several desired properties. This is followed by some results regarding the relations between the constructed logics.

In two recent articles, Norihiro Kamide introduces unusual variants of Nelson’s paraconsistent logic and its classical extension. Kamide’s systems, IP and CP, are unusual insofar as double negations in these logics behave as intuitionistic and classical negations, respectively. In this article we present Hilbert-style axiomatizations of both IP and CP. The axiom system for IP is shown to be sound and complete with respect to a four-valued Kripke semantics, and the axiom system for CP is characterized by four-valued truth tables. Moreover, we note some properties of IP and CP, and emphasize that these logics are unusual also because they are contra-classical and inconsistent but nontrivial. We point out that Kamide’s approach exemplifies a general method for obtaining contra-classical logics, and we briefly speculate about a linguistic application of Kamide’s logics.

It is shown that a simple deduction engine can be developed for a propositional logic that follows the normal rules of classical logic in symbolic form, but the description of what is known about a proposition uses two numeric state variables that conveniently describe unknown and inconsistent, as well as true and false. Partly true and partly false can be included in deductions. The multi-valued logic is easily understood as the state variables relate directly to true and false. The deduction engine provides a convenient standard method for handling multiple or complicated logical relations. It is particularly convenient when the deduction can start with different propositions being given initial values of true or false. It extends Horn clause based deduction for propositional logic to arbitrary clauses. The logic system used has potential applications in many areas. A comparison with propositional logic makes the paper self-contained.