This paper studies, with techniques ofAlgebraic Logic, the effects of putting a bound on the cardinality of the set of side formulas in the Deduction Theorem, viewed as a Gentzen-style rule, and of adding additional assumptions inside the formulas present in Modus Ponens, viewed as a Hilbert-style rule. As a result, a denumerable collection of new Gentzen systems and two new sentential logics have been isolated. These logics are weaker than the positive implicative (...) class='Hi'>logic. We have determined their algebraic models and the relationships between them, and have classified them according to several standard criteria of Abstract Algebraic Logic. One of the logics is protoalgebraic but neither equivalential nor weakly algebraizable, a rare situation where very few natural examples were hitherto known. In passing we have found new, alternative presentations of positive implicative logic, both in Hilbert style and in Gentzen style, and have characterized it in terms of the restricted Deduction Theorem: it is the weakest logic satisfying Modus Ponens and the Deduction Theorem restricted to at most 2 side formulas. The algebraic part of the work has lead to the class of quasi-Hilbert algebras, a quasi-variety of implicative algebras introduced by Pla and Verdú in 1980, which is larger than the variety of Hilbert algebras. Its algebraic properties reflect those of the corresponding logics and Gentzen systems. (shrink)

After some motivating remarks in Section 1, in Section 2 we show how to replace an axiomatic basis for any one of a broad range of sentential logics having finitely many axiom schemes and Modus Ponens as the sole proper rule, by a basis with the same axiom schemes and finitely many one-premiss rules. Section 3 mentions some questions arising from this replacement procedure , explores another such procedure, and discusses some aspects of the consequence relations (...) associated with the different axiomatizations in play. Several open problems are mentioned. An appendix briefly treats the issue of a similar ‘at most one-premiss rules’ reformulation of proof systems with sequent-to-sequent rules. (shrink)

Lattice BCK logic is the expansion of the well known Meredith implicational logic BCK expanded with lattice conjunction and disjunction. Although its natural axiomatization has three rules named modus ponens, ∨‐rule and ∧‐rule, we show that we can give an equivalent presentation with just modus ponens and ∧‐rule, however it is impossible to obtain an equivalent presentation with modus ponens as unique rule. In this paper (...) we study and characterize all axiomatic extensions of lattice BCK logic with modus ponens as unique rule. We obtain an infinite chain of proper axiomatic extensions with this property. Moreover, we prove that there is no weakest axiomatic extension of Lattice BCK‐logic admitting modus ponens as unique rule. (shrink)

The paper is concerned with a logical difficulty which Lionel Shapiro’s deflationist theory of logical consequence (as well as the author’s favoured, non-deflationist theory) gives rise to. It is argued that Shapiro’s non-contractive approach to solving the difficulty, although correct in its broad outlines, is nevertheless extremely problematic in some of its specifics, in particular in its failure to validate certain intuitive rules and laws associated with the principle of modus ponens. An alternative non-contractive theory is (...) offered which does not suffer from the same problem. (shrink)

Recently, there has been a shift away from traditional truth-conditional accounts of meaning towards non-truth-conditional ones, e.g., expressivism, relativism and certain forms of dynamic semantics. Fueling this trend is some puzzling behavior of modal discourse. One particularly surprising manifestation of such behavior is the alleged failure of some of the most entrenched classical rules of inference; viz., modus ponens and modus tollens. These revisionary, non-truth-conditional accounts tout these failures, and the alleged tension between the behavior of modal (...) vocabulary and classical logic, as data in support of their departure from tradition, since the revisionary semantics invalidate some of these patterns. I, instead, offer a semantics for modality with the resources to accommodate the puzzling data while preserving classical logic, thus affirming the tradition that modals express ordinary truth-conditional content. My account shows that the real lesson of the apparent counterexamples is not the one the critics draw, but rather one they missed: namely, that there are linguistic mechanisms, reflected in the logical form, that affect the interpretation of modal language in a context in a systematic and precise way, which have to be captured by any adequate semantic account of the interaction between discourse context and modal vocabulary. The semantic theory I develop specifies these mechanisms and captures precisely how they affect the interpretation of modals in a context, and do so in a way that both explains the appearance of the putative counterexamples and preserves classical logic. (shrink)

The paper deals with the epistemological problems posed by the application of the modus ponens rule in cognitive processing of distributed information. Distinguishing the deductive correctness of a rule of inference from its normativity for rational belief, we consider ‘counterexamples’ of modus ponens proposed in modern epistemology of logic that endanger not its model-theoretic validity, but epistemic rationality for boundedly rational cognitive agents. We explain the epistemic lacunas in the closure of knowledge (...) according to modus ponens revealed by Dretske’s ‘counterexamples’ by a variety of standards of validity that go beyond ‘common sense’. However, the epistemic ‘counterexamples’ of modus ponens proposed by McGee, Kolodny and MacFarlane require, in our opinion, an appeal to less obvious epistemic phenomena, which can be discovered by reasoning for interpretation. We demonstrate that the supposed ‘counterexamples’ to modus ponens do not conflict with either the epistemic neutrality of logic or its epistemic relevance to boundedly rational agents. On the contrary, the appeal to reasoning for interpretation, which is needed to resolve the difficulties caused by these ‘counterexamples’, helps to achieve a balance between the epistemic constraints of reasoning agents and the logical requirements for the correctness of their interpretive and deductive cognitive operations. (shrink)

En este trabajo se presenta una explicación para el problema de las versiones abstractas de la tarea de selección de las cuatro tarjetas de Peter Wason: los discretos resultados de los participantes cuando se enfrentan a ellas. Nuestra explicación apunta a que los sujetos no comprenden la regla de la tarea como un condicional, sino como un bicondicional, provocando tal circunstancia que no elijan las tarjetas correctas. Santamaría planteó una objeción para todo enfoque que defienda que en la tarea de (...) selección se produce una interpretación bicondicional de la regla, pero nosotros también respondemos aquí a dicha objeción atendiendo a la primacía que en el razonamiento humano puede tener la regla lógica del modus ponens. Igualmente, exponemos un estudio, basado en diálogos de seminario tutoriales al modo socrático, realizado por nosotros con el propósito de comprobar si nuestra explicación puede ser viable y comentamos los resultados obtenidos. In this paper, we present an explanation for the problem of the abstract versions of Peter Wason’s four-card selection task: modest subjects’ results when they are confronted with these tasks. Our explanation poses that individuals do not comprehend the task rule as a conditional sentence, but as a biconditional one, causing that subjects do not choose the correct cards. Santamaría presented an objection for any approach that suggests a biconditional interpretation in the task selection. In this work, we discuss this objection based on the apparent primacy of a logical rule in human reasoning: modus ponens. Additionally, we present a study based on Socratic dialogue seminars with a tutorial style, developed by us, to check whether our explanation is viable or not, and discuss the results achieved. (shrink)

This paper surveys the various forms of Deduction Theorem for a broad range of relevant logics. The logics range from the basic system B of Routley-Meyer through to the system R of relevant implication, and the forms of Deduction Theorem are characterized by the various formula representations of rules that are either unrestricted or restricted in certain ways. The formula representations cover the iterated form,A 1 .A 2 . ... .A n B, the conjunctive form,A 1&A 2 & ...A (...) n B, the combined conjunctive and iterated form, enthymematic version of these three forms, and the classical implicational form,A 1&A 2& ...A n B. The concept of general enthymeme is introduced and the Deduction Theorem is shown to apply for rules essentially derived using Modus Ponens and Adjunction only, with logics containing either (A B)&(B C) .A C orA B .B C .A C. (shrink)

The author gentzenizes the positive fragmentsT + andR + of relevantT andR using formulas with, prefixes (subscripts). There are three main Gentzen formulations ofS +{T+,R +} calledW 1 S +,W 2 S + andG 2 S +. The first two have the rule of modus ponens. All of them have a weak rule DL for disjunction introduction on the left. DL is not admissible inS + but it is needed in the proof of a cut (...) elimination theorem forG 2 S +.W 1 S + has a weak rule of weakeningW 1 and it is not closed under a general transitivity rule. This allows the proof that A inS + iff A inW 1 S +. From the cut elimination theorem forG 2 S + it follows that if A inS +, then A inG 2 S +. In order to prove the converse,W 2 S + is needed. It contains modus ponens, transitivity, and a restricted weakening rule.G 2 S + is contained inW 2 S + and there is a proof that A inW 2 S + iff A inW 1 S +. (shrink)

According to the Adoption Problem certain basic logical principles cannot be adopted. Drawing on the AP, Suki Finn presents an argument against logical pluralism: Modus Ponens and Universal Instantiation both govern a general structure shared by every logical rule. As such, analogues of these two rules must be present in every meta-logic for any logical system L, effectively imposing a restriction to logical pluralism at the meta-level through their presence constituting a “meta-logical monism”. We find a (...) tension in the dual role that the “unadoptable rules” must play in Finn’s “meta-logical monism” rendering it ineffective to restrict logical theories and systems. Consequently, we argue they cannot be both analogues of MP and UI and inferentially productive. We conclude with a series of suggestions regarding where a more satisfying and robust interpretation of the AP could lie. (shrink)

There is a renewed debate about modus ponens. Strikingly, the recent counterexamples in Cantwell, Dreier and MacFarlane and Kolodny are generated by restricted readings of the ‘if’-clause. Moreover, it can be argued on general grounds that the restrictor view of conditionals developed in Kratzer and Lewis leads to counterexamples to modus ponens. This paper provides a careful analysis of modus ponens within the framework of the restrictor view. Despite appearances to the contrary, there (...) is a robust sense in which modus ponens is valid, owing to the fact that conditionals do not only allow for restricted readings but have bare interpretations, too. (shrink)

Is modus ponens valid for the indicative conditional? McGee [1985] famously presents several alleged counterexamples to this inference rule. More recently, Kolodny and MacFarlane [2010] and Willer [2010] argue that modus ponens is unreliable in certain hypothetical contexts. However, none of these attacks undermines an informational conception of logic on which modus ponens is valid.

In the recent paper “Naive modus ponens”, Zardini presents some brief considerations against an approach to semantic paradoxes that rejects the transitivity of entailment. The problem with the approach is, according to Zardini, that the failure of a meta-inference closely resembling modus ponens clashes both with the logical idea of modus ponens as a valid inference and the semantic idea of the conditional as requiring that a true conditional cannot have true antecedent (...) and false consequent. I respond on behalf of the non-transitive approach. I argue that the meta-inference in question is independent from the logical idea of modus ponens, and that the semantic idea of the conditional as formulated by Zardini is inadequate for his purposes because it is spelled out in a vocabulary not suitable for evaluating the adequacy of the conditional in semantics for non-transitive entailment. I proceed to generalize the semantic idea of the conditional and show that the most popular semantics for non-transitive entailment satisfies the new formulation. (shrink)

The logic of single-conclusion proofs () is introduced. It combines the verification property of proofs with the single valuedness of proof predicate and describes the operations on proofs induced by modus ponens rule and proof checking. It is proved that is decidable, sound and complete with respect to arithmetical proof interpretations based on single-valued proof predicates. The application to arithmetical inference rules specification and -admissibility testing is considered. We show that the provability in gives (...) the complete admissibility test for the rules which can be specified by schemes in -language. The test is supplied with the ground proof extraction algorithm which eliminates the admissible rules from a -proof by utilizing the information from the corresponding -proofs. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: This paper traces the earliest development of the most basic principle of deduction, i.e. modus ponens (or Law of Detachment). ‘Aristotelian logic’, as it was taught from late antiquity until the 20th century, commonly included a short presentation of the argument forms modus (ponendo) ponens, modus (tollendo) tollens, modus ponendo tollens, and modus tollendo ponens. In late antiquity, arguments of these forms were generally classified as ‘hypothetical syllogisms’. However, Aristotle did (...) not discuss such arguments, nor did he call any arguments ‘hypothetical syllogisms’. The Stoic indemonstrables resemble the modus ponens/tollens arguments. But the Stoics never called them ‘hypothetical syllogisms’; nor did they describe them as ponendo ponens, etc. The tradition of the four argument forms and the classification of the arguments as hypothetical syllogisms hence need some explaining. In this paper, I offer some explanations by tracing the development of certain elements of Aristotle’s logic via the early Peripatetics to the logic of later antiquity. I consider the questions: How did the four argument forms arise? Why were there four of them? Why were arguments of these forms called ‘hypothetical syllogisms’? On what grounds were they considered valid? I argue that such arguments were neither part of Aristotle’s dialectic, nor simply the result of an adoption of elements of Stoic logic, but the outcome of a long, gradual development that begins with Aristotle’s logic as preserved in his Topics and Prior Analytics; and that, as a result, we have a Peripatetic logic of hypothetical inferences which is a far cry both from Stoic logic and from classical propositional logic, but which sports a number of interesting characteristics, some of which bear a cunning resemblance to some 20th century theories. (shrink)

This paper presents an adaptive logic enhancement of conditional logics of normality that allows for defeasible applications of Modus Ponens to conditionals. In addition to the possibilities these logics already offer in terms of reasoning about conditionals, this way they are enriched by the ability to perform default inferencing. The idea is to apply Modus Ponens defeasibly to a conditional and a fact on the condition that it is ‘safe' to do so concerning the factual (...) and conditional knowledge at hand. It is for instance not safe if the given information describes exceptional circumstances: although birds usually fly, penguins are exceptional to this rule. The two adaptive standard strategies are shown to correspond to different intuitions, a skeptical and a credulous reasoning type, which manifest themselves in the handling of so-called floating conclusions. (shrink)

“Weak relevant model structures” (wr-ms) are defined on “weak relevant matrices” by generalizing Brady’s model structure ${\mathcal{M}_{\rm CL}}$ built upon Meyer’s Crystal matrix CL. It is shown how to falsify in any wr-ms the Generalized Modus Ponens axiom and similar schemes used to derive Curry’s Paradox. In the last section of the paper we discuss how to extend this method of falsification to more general schemes that could also be used in deriving Curry’s Paradox.

Modus ponens (from A and “if A then C” infer C) is one of the most basic inference rules. The probabilistic modus ponens allows for managing uncertainty by transmitting assigned uncertainties from the premises to the conclusion (i.e., from P(A) and P(C|A) infer P(C)). In this paper, we generalize the probabilistic modus ponens by replacing A by the conditional event A|H. The resulting inference rule involves iterated conditionals (formalized by conditional random quantities) and (...) propagates previsions from the premises to the conclusion. Interestingly, the propagation rules for the lower and the upper bounds on the conclusion of the generalized probabilistic modus ponens coincide with the respective bounds on the conclusion for the (non-nested) probabilistic modus ponens. (shrink)

The precedent studies on the validity of Modus ponens and Modus tollens have been carried out with most regard to a major type of conditionals in which the conditional clause is a sufficient condition for the main clause. But we sometimes, in natural language arguments, find other types of conditionals in which the conditional clause is a necessary or necessary and sufficient condition for the main clause. In this paper I reappraise, on the basis of new (...) definitions of Modus ponens and Modus tollens, their validity/invalidity in natural language arguments in consideration of all types of conditionals. (shrink)

In [1] J.-Y. Bèziau formulated a logic called Z. Bèziau’s idea was generalized independently in [6] and [7]. A family of logics to which Z belongs is denoted in [7] by K. In particular; it has been shown in [6] and [7] that there is a correspondence between normal modal logics and logics from the class K. Similar; but only partial results has been obtained also for regular logics. In a logic N has been investigated in the language (...) with negation; implication; conjunction and disjunction by axioms of positive intuitionistic logic; the right-to-left part of the second de Morgan law; and the rules of modus ponens and contraposition. From the semantical point of view the negation used by Došen is the modal operator of impossibility. It is known this operator is a characteristic of the modal interpretation of intuitionistic negation. In the present paper we consider an extension of N denoted by N+. We will prove that every extension of N+ that is closed under the same rules as N+; corresponds to a regular logic being an extension of the regular deontic logic D21. The proved correspondence allows to obtain from soundnesscompleteness result for any given regular logic containing D2, similar adequacy theorem for the respective extension of the logic N+. (shrink)

In a recent pair of publications, Richard Bradley has offered two novel no-go theorems involving the principle of Preservation for conditionals, which guarantees that one’s prior conditional beliefs will exhibit a certain degree of inertia in the face of a change in one’s non-conditional beliefs. We first note that Bradley’s original discussions of these results—in which he finds motivation for rejecting Preservation, first in a principle of Commutativity, then in a doxastic analogue of the rule of modus (...) class='Hi'>ponens —are problematic in a significant number of respects. We then turn to a recent U-turn on his part, in which he winds up rescinding his commitment to modus ponens, on the grounds of a tension with the rule of Import-Export for conditionals. Here we offer an important positive contribution to the literature, settling the following crucial question that Bradley leaves unanswered: assuming that one gives up on full-blown modus ponens on the grounds of its incompatibility with Import-Export, what weakened version of the principle should one be settling for instead? Our discussion of the issue turns out to unearth an interesting connection between epistemic undermining and the apparent failures of modus ponens in McGee’s famous counterexamples. (shrink)

It is commonly accepted that those embedded conditionals of the type "if A, then if B, then C" we do understand, we understand as equivalent to sentences without embedded conditionals. This reduction is in classical logic achieved with the use of laws of exportation and importation. V. McGee even presents counterexamples to modus ponens which are based on the classical treatment of embedded conditionals and proposes to trade the validity of modus ponens for the (...) validity of laws of importation and exportation. It is argued that for a large class of indicative conditionals the laws of exportation and importation are invalid. With the help of Stalnaker's selection function theory of conditionals and the distinction between valid and reasonable inferences it is shown that modus ponens is valid but can be unreasonable, whereas laws of importation and exportation are invalid, but still reasonable. (shrink)

In this work, an intuitionistic propositional logic with a Galois connection is introduced. In addition to the intuitionistic logic axioms and inference rule of modus ponens, the logic contains only two rules of inference mimicking the performance of Galois connections. Both Kripke-style and algebraic semantics are presented for IntGC, and IntGC is proved to be complete with respect to both of these semantics. We show that IntGC has the finite model property and (...) is decidable, but Glivenko's Theorem does not hold. Duality between algebraic and Kripke semantics is presented, and a representation theorem for Heyting algebras with Galois connections is proved. In addition, an application to rough L-valued sets is presented. (shrink)

A number of recent authors (Galles and Pearl, Found Sci 3 (1):151–182, 1998; Hiddleston, Noûs 39 (4):232–257, 2005; Halpern, J Artif Intell Res 12:317–337, 2000) advocate a causal modeling semantics for counterfactuals. But the precise logical significance of the causal modeling semantics remains murky. Particularly important, yet particularly under-explored, is its relationship to the similarity-based semantics for counterfactuals developed by Lewis (Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, 1973b). The causal modeling semantics is both an account of the truth conditions of counterfactuals, and (...) an account of which inferences involving counterfactuals are valid. As an account of truth conditions, it is incomplete. While Lewis's similarity semantics lets us evaluate counterfactuals with arbitrarily complex antecedents and consequents, the causal modeling semantics makes it hard to ascertain the truth conditions of all but a highly restricted class of counterfactuals. I explain how to extend the causal modeling language to encompass a wider range of sentences, and provide a sound and complete axiomatization for the extended language. Extending the truth conditions for counterfactuals has serious consequences concerning valid inference. The extended language is unlike any logic of Lewis's: modus ponens is invalid, and classical logical equivalents cannot be freely substituted in the antecedents of conditionals. (shrink)

The modus ponens (A -> B, A :. B) is, along with modus tollens and the two logically not valid counterparts denying the antecedent (A -> B, ¬A :. ¬B) and affirming the consequent, the argument form that was most often investigated in the psychology of human reasoning. The present contribution reports the results of three experiments on the probabilistic versions of modus ponens and denying the antecedent. In probability logic these arguments lead (...) to conclusions with imprecise probabilities. In the modus ponens tasks the participants inferred probabilities that agreed much better with the coherent normative values than in the denying the antecedent tasks, a result that mirrors results found with the classical argument versions. For modus ponens a surprisingly high number of lower and upper probabilities agreed perfectly with the conjugacy property (upper probabilities equal one complements of the lower probabilities). When the probabilities of the premises are imprecise the participants do not ignore irrelevant (“silent”) boundary probabilities. The results show that human mental probability logic is close to predictions derived from probability logic for the most elementary argument form, but has considerable difficulties with the more complex forms involving negations. (shrink)

It is well-known that intuitionistic logics can be formalized by means of Heyting algebras, i.e. relatively pseudocomplemented semilattices. Within such algebras the logical connectives implication and conjunction are formalized as the relative pseudocomplement and the semilattice operation meet, respectively. If the Heyting algebra has a bottom element |$0$|⁠, then the relative pseudocomplement with respect to |$0$| is called the pseudocomplement and it is considered as the connective negation in this logic. Our idea is to consider an arbitrary meet-semilattice (...) with |$0$| satisfying only the Ascending Chain Condition (these assumptions are trivially satisfied in finite meet-semilattices) and introduce the operators formalizing the connectives negation |$x^{0}$| and implication |$x\rightarrow y$| as the set of all maximal elements |$z$| satisfying |$x\wedge z=0$| and as the set of all maximal elements |$z$| satisfying |$x\wedge z\leq y$|⁠, respectively. Such a negation and implication is ‘unsharp’ since it assigns to one entry |$x$| or to two entries |$x$| and |$y$| belonging to the semilattice, respectively, a subset instead of an element of the semilattice. Surprisingly, this kind of negation and implication still shares a number of properties of these connectives in intuitionistic logic, in particular the derivation rule Modus Ponens. Moreover, unsharp negation and unsharp implication can be characterized by means of five, respectively seven simple axioms. We present several examples. The concepts of a deductive system and of a filter are introduced as well as the congruence determined by such a filter. We finally describe certain relationships between these concepts. (shrink)

For first order languages with no individual constants, empty structures and truth values (for sentences) in them are defined. The first order theories of the empty structures and of all structures (the empty ones included) are axiomatized with modus ponens as the only rule of inference. Compactness is proved and decidability is discussed. Furthermore, some well known theorems of model theory are reconsidered under this new situation. Finally, a word is said on other approaches to (...) the whole problem. (shrink)

We explore the problems that confront any attempt to explain or explicate exactly what a primitive logical rule of inferenceis, orconsists in. We arrive at a proposed solution that places a surprisingly heavy load on the prospect of being able to understand and deal with specifications of rules that are essentiallyself-referring. That is, any rule$\rho $is to be understood via a specification that involves, embedded within it, reference to rule$\rho $itself. Just how we arrive at this (...) position is explained by reference to familiar rules as well as less familiar ones with unusual features. An inquiry of this kind is surprisingly absent from the foundations of inferentialism—the view that meanings of expressions (especially logical ones) are to be characterized by the rules of inference that govern them. (shrink)

We develop a functional abstraction principle for the type-free algorithmic logic introduced in our earlier work. Our approach is based on the standard combinators but is supplemented by the novel use of evaluation trees. Then we show that the abstraction principle leads to a Curry fixed point, a statement C that asserts C ⇒ A where A is any given statement. When A is false, such a C yields a paradoxical situation. As discussed in our earlier work, this situation (...) leaves one no choice but to restrict the use of a certain class of implicational rules including modus ponens. (shrink)

This paper attempts to motivate the view that instead of rejecting modus ponens as invalid in certain situations, one could preserve its validity by associating such situations with non-normal interpretations of logical connectives.

Crispin Wright in his 1982 paper argues for strict finitism, a constructive standpoint that is more restrictive than intuitionism. In its appendix, he proposes models of strict finitistic arithmetic. They are tree-like structures, formed in his strict finitistic metatheory, of equations between numerals on which concrete arithmetical sentences are evaluated. As a first step towards classical formalisation of strict finitism, we propose their counterparts in the classical metatheory with one additional assumption, and then extract the propositional part of ‘strict (...) finitistic logic’ from it and investigate. We will provide a sound and complete pair of a Kripke-style semantics and a sequent calculus, and compare with other logics. The logic lacks the law of excluded middle and Modus Ponens and is weaker than classical logic, but stronger than any proper intermediate logics in terms of theoremhood. In fact, all the other well-known classical theorems are found to be theorems. Finally, we will make an observation that models of this semantics can be seen as nodes of an intuitionistic model. (shrink)

This paper deals with two issues in the field of reasoning by analogy in the law. The one issue is whether there exists such a thing as analogous rule application, or whether there is only the ‘normal’ application of a broadened rule. It is argued that if rules, as the entities made by a legislator, are distinguished from generalised solutions for cases, the idea of analogous application of rules makes sense. It is also shown how the so-called (...) ‘reason-based model of rule application’, in contrast to the traditional modus ponens or subsumption model, makes it easy to give a logical account of analogous rule application. The other issue is how to argue logically about whether two cases are sufficiently similar to adopt the outcome of the one case for the other case. Section 3 provides a general logical model to establish this. The model is based on the comparison of the reasons for and against a particular solution in the two cases. (shrink)

As it is well known, in the forties of the past century, Curry proved that in any logic S closed under Modus Ponens, uniform substitution of propositional variables and the Contraction Law, the naïve Comprehension axiom trivializes S in the sense that all propositions are derivable in S plus CA. Not less known is the fact that, ever since Curry published his proof, theses and rules weaker than W have been shown to cause the same effect as (...) W causes. Among these, the Contraction rule or the Modus Ponens axiom, for example, are to be noted. But, moreover, as Brady has proved, even the Generalized Modus Ponens axiom or the Generalized Contraction rule give rise to “Curry’s Paradox” under the same circumstances as W does. In some previous work by us, “weak relevant model structures” are defined on “weak relevant matrices” by generalizing Brady’s model structure MCL built upon Meyer’s Crystal matrix CL. We have proved that wr-ms only verify logics with the “depth relevance condition”. The aim of this paper is to show how to falsify gMPa and gRW in certain wr-ms. In particular, it will be shown that gMPa is falisfied in any wr-ms and gRW in any wr-ms verifying Routley and Meyer’s basic positive logic B+. (shrink)

ABSTRACTA conditional is natural if it fulfils the three following conditions. It coincides with the classical conditional when restricted to the classical values T and F; it satisfies the Modus Ponens; and it is assigned a designated value whenever the value assigned to its antecedent is less than or equal to the value assigned to its consequent. The aim of this paper is to provide a ‘bivalent’ Belnap-Dunn semantics for all natural implicative expansions of Kleene's strong (...) 3-valued matrix with two designated elements. (shrink)

In [15], [16] G. Kreisel introduced the no-counterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated ε-substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theorem A (A prenex) of first-order Peano arithmetic PA one can find ordinal recursive functionals Φ A of order type 0 which realize the Herbrand normal form A H of A. Subsequently more perspicuous proofs of this fact via functional interpretation (combined with normalization) and cut-elimination were found. These proofs however (...) do not carry out the no-counterexample interpretation as a local proof interpretation and don't respect the modus ponens on the level of the no-counterexample interpretation of formulas A and A → B. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that both proofs do not establish the condition (δ) and--at least not constructively-- (γ) which are part of the definition of an 'interpretation of a formal system' as formulated in [15]. In this paper we determine the complexity of the no-counterexample interpretation of the modus ponens rule for (i) PA-provable sentences, (ii) for arbitrary sentences A, B ∈ L(PA) uniformly in functionals satisfying the no-counterexample interpretation of (prenex normal forms of) A and A → B, and (iii) for arbitrary A, B ∈ L(PA) pointwise in given α( 0 ) -recursive functionals satisfying the no-counterexample interpretation of A and A → B. This yields in particular perspicuous proofs of new uniform versions of the conditions (γ), (δ). Finally we discuss a variant of the concept of an interpretation presented in [17] and show that it is incomparable with the concept studied in [15], [16]. In particular we show that the no-counterexample interpretation of PA n by α( n (ω))-recursive functionals (n ≥ 1) is an interpretation in the sense of [17] but not in the sense of [15] since it violates the condition (δ). (shrink)

This paper argues that Ramsey's view of the calculus of subjective probabilities as, in effect, logical axioms is the correct view, with powerful heuristic value. This heuristic value is seen particularly in the analysis of the role of conditionalization in the Bayesian theory, where a semantic criterion of synchronic coherence is employed as the test of soundness, which the traditional formulation of conditionalization fails. On the other hand, there is a generally sound rule which supports conditionalization in appropriate (...) contexts, though these contexts are not universal. This sound Bayesian rule is seen to be analogous in certain respects to the deductive rule of modus ponens. (shrink)

We give a negative solution to the problem, posed by A. Chagrov and M. Zakharyaschev, of whether every quasi-normal propositional modal logic can be axiomatized by an independent set of axioms, with the inference rules of Substitution and Modus Ponens.

In the paper we analyse the problem of axiomatizing the minimal variant of discussive logic denoted as $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0. Our aim is to give its axiomatization that would correspond to a known axiomatization of the original discussive logic $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2. The considered system is minimal in a class of discussive logics. It is defined similarly, as Jaśkowski’s logic $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2 but with the help of (...) the deontic normal logic $$\textbf{D}$$ D. Although we focus on the smallest discussive logic and its correspondence to $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2, we analyse to some extent also its formal aspects, in particular its behaviour with respect to rules that hold for classical logic. In the paper we propose a deductive system for the above recalled discussive logic. While formulating this system, we apply a method of Newton da Costa and Lech Dubikajtis—a modified version of Jerzy Kotas’s method used to axiomatize $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2. Basically the difference manifests in the result—in the case of da Costa and Dubikajtis, the resulting axiomatization is pure modus ponens-style. In the case of $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0, we have to use some rules, but they are mostly needed to express some aspects of positive logic. $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0 understood as a set of theses is contained in $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2. Additionally, any non-trivial discussive logic expressed by means of Jaśkowski’s model of discussion, applied to any regular modal logic of discussion, contains $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0. (shrink)

Dialogue semantics for logic are two-player logic games between a Proponent who puts forward a logical formula φ as valid or true and an Opponent who disputes this. An advantage of the dialogical approach is that it is a uniform framework from which different logics can be obtained through only small variations of the basic rules. We introduce the composition problem for dialogue games as the problem of resolving, for a set S of rules for dialogue games, whether (...) the set of S-dialogically valid formulas is closed under modus ponens. Solving the composition problem is fundamental for the dialogical approach to logic; despite its simplicity, it often requires an indirect solution with the help of significant logical machinery such as cut-elimination. Direct solutions to the composition problem can, however, sometimes be had. As an example, we give a set N of dialogue rules which is well-justified from the dialogical point of view, but whose set N of dialogically valid formulas is both non-trivial and non-standard. We prove that the composition problem for N can be solved directly, and introduce a tableaux system for N. (shrink)

The Yogācāra school of logic developed a theory of sign-inferences that has many features of the Stoic and Epicurean logical teachings with small inclusions of Aristotelian ideas. In the Nyāyabindu of Dharmakīrti, we can find the following schemes of formal reasoning: modus Barbara (Figure I) and modus Camenes (Figure IV) of the Aristotelian syllogistic, and all the inference rules of the Stoic logic: modus ponens, modus tollens, modus ponendo tollens, modus (...) tollendo ponens I, modus tollendo ponens II. The three premises of Yogācāra inference (if p, then q; there is an example that p and q occur together; p; then q) corresponds to the Epicurean doctrine of three premises with a necessary exemplification. Thus, the paper is a comparative study of Greek and Buddhist theory of sign-inferences, showing a deep similarity between them. (shrink)

Many philosophers claim that understanding a logical constant (e.g. ‘if, then’) fundamentally consists in having dispositions to infer according to the logical rules (e.g. Modus Ponens) that fix its meaning. This paper argues that such dispositionalist accounts give us the wrong picture of what understanding a logical constant consists in. The objection here is that they give an account of understanding a logical constant which is inconsistent with what seem to be adequate manifestations of such understanding. I (...) then outline an alternative account according to which understanding a logical constant is not to be understood dispositionally, but propositionally. I argue that this account is not inconsistent with intuitively correct manifestations of understanding the logical constants. (shrink)

I give a semantics for a logic with two pairs of doxastic modals and an indicative conditional connective that all nest without restriction. Sentences are evaluated as accepted, rejected, or neither. Certainty is the necessity-like modality of acceptance. Inferences may proceed from premises that are certain, or merely accepted, or a mix of both. This semantic setup yields some striking results. Notably, the existence of inferences that preserve certainty but not acceptance very directly implies both failure of (...) class='Hi'>modus ponens for the indicative conditional in the logic of acceptance and failure of the deduction theorem for the material conditional in the logic of certainty. The latter failure dissolves, in the logic of certainty, the much - discussed tension between modus ponens and the law of import-export. (shrink)

Mental probability logic is a psychological competence theory about how humans interpret and reason about common-sense conditionals. Probability logic is proposed as an appropriate standard of reference for evaluating the rationality of human inferences. Common-sense conditionals are interpreted as “high” conditional probabilities, P(B|A) > .5. Probability logical accounts of nonmonotonic reasoning and inference rules like the modus ponens are explored. Categorical syllogisms with comparative and quantitative quantifiers are investigated. A series of eight experiments on human (...) probabilistic reasoning in the framework of the basic nonmonotonic system p corroborate the psychological plausibility of the proposed approach. (shrink)

A well-known result, going back to the twenties, states that, under some reasonable assumptions, any logic can be characterized as the set of formulas satisfied by a matrix 〈,F〉, whereis an algebra of the appropriate type, andFa subset of the domain of, called the set of designated elements. In particular, every quasi-classical modal logic—a set of modal formulas, containing the smallest classical modal logicE, which is closed under the inference rules of substitution and modus ponens—is characterized (...) by such a matrix, wherenow is a modal algebra, andFis a filter of. If the modal logic is in fact normal, then we can do away with the filter; we can study normal modal logics in the setting of varieties of modal algebras. This point of view was adopted already quite explicitly in McKinsey and Tarski [8]. The observation that the lattice of normal modal logics is dually isomorphic to the lattice of subvarieties of a variety of modal algebras paved the road for an algebraic study of normal modal logics. The algebraic approach made available some general results from Universal Algebra, notably those obtained by Jónsson [6], and thereby was able to contribute new insights in the realm of normal modal logics [2], [3], [4], [10].The requirement that a modal logic be normal is rather a severe one, however, and many of the systems which have been considered in the literature do not meet it. For instance, of the five celebrated modal systems, S1–S5, introduced by Lewis, S4 and S5 are the only normal ones, while only SI fails to be quasi-classical. The purpose of this paper is to generalize the algebraic approach so as to be applicable not just to normal modal logics, but to quasi-classical modal logics in general. (shrink)

This paper investigates the implicative conditional, a connective intended to describe the logical behavior of an empirically defined class of natural language conditionals, also namedimplicative conditionals, which excludes concessive and some other conditionals. The implicative conditional strengthens the strict conditional with the possibility of the antecedent and of the contradictory of the consequent.$${p\Rightarrow q}$$p⇒qis thus defined as$${\lnot } \Diamond {(p \wedge \lnot q) \wedge } \Diamond {p \wedge } \Diamond {\lnot q}$$¬◊(p∧¬q)∧◊p∧◊¬q. We explore the logical properties of this conditional (...) in a reflexive normal Kripke semantics, provide an axiomatic system and prove it to be sound and complete for our semantics. The implicative conditional validates transitivity and contraposition, which we take to be integral parts of reasoning and communication. But it only validates restricted versions of strengthening the antecedent, right weakening, simplification, and rational monotonicity. Apparent counterexamples to some of these properties are explained as due to contextual factors. Finally, the implicative conditional avoids the paradoxes of material and strict implication, and validates some connexive principles such as Aristotle’s theses and weak Boethius’ thesis, as well as some highly entrenched principles of conditionals, such as conjunction of consequents, disjunction of antecedents, modus ponens, cautious monotonicity and cut. (shrink)

The Adoption Problem (AP) was a postponed issue for some years (Kripke, 2024; Padró, 2015; Birman, 2024). This problem highlights certain difficulties surrounding the adoption of rules of inference: If anti-exceptionalism is wrong, is it possible to adopt an alternative logic? What is the point of the revision of logic in epistemology? During 2022 Kripke, Padró and Barrio held seminars on AP. The latter two edited the first thematic section on this subject in the journal Análisis Filosófico. It (...) contains “What the Adoption Problem Does Not Show” by Camilo Fiore, subject of this critical note, in which Fiore holds two theses: 1) AP is compatible with the thesis that logica utens is revisable; 2) to assess whether an agent can revise their logic, it is best to consider a different definition of adoption, e.g. weak adoption, according to which Universal Instantiation and Modus Ponens are sometimes adoptable. It then states that (1) and (2) are independent. In this article I will criticize the independence between (1) and (2). To this end, I will point out that thesis (1) and (2) are supported by the examples of Carrie and Barry, respectively, and that the type of logical revision involved in both is the same and local. Therefore, (1) and (2) are not independent. Next, I argue that it is impossible to satisfy another kind of logical revision, e.g. global revision. Therefore, the interdependence between (1) and (2) is not due to the examples proposed. (shrink)

We present two finitely axiomatized modal propositional logics, one betweenTandS4 and the other an extension ofS4, which are incomplete with respect to the neighbourhood or Scott-Montague semantics.Throughout this paper we are referring to logics which contain all the classical connectives and only one modal connective □ (unary), no propositional constants, all classical tautologies, and which are closed under the rules of modus ponens (MP), substitution, and the rule RE (fromA↔Binfer αA↔ □B). Such logics are calledclassicalby Segerberg (...) [6]. Classical logics which contain the formula □p∧ □q→ □(p∧q) (denoted byK) and its “converse,” □{p∧q)→ □p∧ □q(denoted byR) are called regular;regularlogics which are closed under the rule of necessitation, RN (fromAinfer □A), are callednormal. The logics that we are particularly concerned with are all normal, although some of our results will be true for all regular or all classical logics. It is well known thatKandRand closure under RN imply closure under RE and also that normal logics are also those logics closed under RN and containing □{p→q) → {□p→ □q). (shrink)

What is the relation of logic to thinking? My dissertation offers a new argument for the claim that logic is constitutive of thinking in the following sense: representational activity counts as thinking only if it manifests sensitivity to logical rules. In short, thinking has to be minimally logical. An account of thinking has to allow for our freedom to question or revise our commitments – even seemingly obvious conceptual connections – without loss of understanding. This freedom, I argue, (...) requires that thinkers have general abilities to respond to support and tension among their thoughts. And these abilities are constituted by following logical rules. So thinkers have to follow logical rules. But there isn’t just one correct logic for thinking. I show that my view is consistent with logical pluralism: there are a range of correct logics, any one of which a thinker might follow. A logic for thinking does, however, have to contain certain minimal principles: Modus Ponens and Non-Contradiction, and perhaps others. We follow logical rules by exercising logical capacities, which display a distinctive first-person/third-person asymmetry: a subject can find the instances of a rule compelling without seeing them as instances of a rule. As a result, there are two limits on illogical thinking. First, thinkers have to tend to find instances of logical rules compelling. Second, thinkers can’t think in obviously illogical ways. So thinking has to be logical – but not perfectly so. When we try to think, but fail, we produce nonsense. But our failures to think are often subjectively indistinguishable from thinking. To explain how this occurs, I offer an account of nonsense. To be under the illusion that some nonsense makes sense is to enter a pretence that the nonsense is meaningful. Our use of nonsense within the pretence relies on the role of logical form in understanding. Finally, while the normativity of logic doesn’t fall directly out of logical constitutivism, it’s possible to build an attractive account of logical normativity which has logical constitutivism as an integral part. I argue that thinking is necessary for human flourishing, and that this is the source of logical normativity. (shrink)

The recent literature on Nāgārjuna’s catuṣkoṭi centres around Jay Garfield’s and Graham Priest’s interpretation. It is an open discussion to what extent their interpretation is an adequate model of the logic for the catuskoti, and the Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā. Priest and Garfield try to make sense of the contradictions within the catuskoti by appeal to a series of lattices – orderings of truth-values, supposed to model the path to enlightenment. They use Anderson & Belnaps's framework of First Degree Entailment. Cotnoir has (...) argued that the lattices of Priest and Garfield cannot ground the logic of the catuskoti. The concern is simple: on the one hand, FDE brings with it the failure of classical principles such as modus ponens. On the other hand, we frequently encounter Nāgārjuna using classical principles in other arguments in the MMK. There is a problem of validity. If FDE is Nāgārjuna’s logic of choice, he is facing what is commonly called the classical recapture problem: how to make sense of cases where classical principles like modus pones are valid? One cannot just add principles like modus pones as assumptions, because in the background paraconsistent logic this does not rule out their negations. In this essay, I shall explore and critically evaluate Cotnoir’s proposal. In detail, I shall reveal that his framework suffers collapse of the kotis. Taking Cotnoir’s concerns seriously, I shall suggest a formulation of the catuskoti in classical Boolean Algebra, extended by the notion of an external negation as an illocutionary act. I will focus on purely formal considerations, leaving doctrinal matters to the scholarly discourse – as far as this is possible. (shrink)