Fractional-Valued Modal Logic and Soft Bilateralism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.2023.17Keywords:
modal logic, general proof theory (including proof-theoretic semantics), many-valued logicsAbstract
In a recent paper, under the auspices of an unorthodox variety of bilateralism, we introduced a new kind of proof-theoretic semantics for the base modal logic \(\mathbf{K}\), whose values lie in the closed interval \([0,1]\) of rational numbers. In this paper, after clarifying our conception of bilateralism -- dubbed ``soft bilateralism" -- we generalize the fractional method to encompass extensions and weakenings of \(\mathbf{K}\). Specifically, we introduce well-behaved hypersequent calculi for the deontic logic \(\mathbf{D}\) and the non-normal modal logics \(\mathbf{E}\) and \(\mathbf{M}\) and thoroughly investigate their structural properties.
References
A. Avron, A constructive analysis of RM, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 52(4) (1987), pp. 939–951, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2273828.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2273828
A. Avron, Hypersequents, logical consequence and intermediate logics for concurrency, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4(3-4) (1991), pp. 225–248, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531058.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531058
A. Avron, The method of hypersequents in the proof theory of propositional non-classical logics, [in:] Logic: From foundations to applications, Clarendon Press (1996), pp. 1–32.
Google Scholar
N. Francez, Bilateralism in proof-theoretic semantics, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 43(2–3) (2014), pp. 239–259, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9261-3.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9261-3
N. Francez, Proof-theoretic Semantics, College Publications (2015).
Google Scholar
V. Goranko, G. Pulcini, T. Skura, Refutation systems: An overview and some applications to philosophical logics, [in:] F. Liu, H. Ono, J. Yu (eds.), Knowledge, Proof and Dynamics, Springer (2020), pp. 173–197, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2221-5_9.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2221-5_9
N. Kürbis, Proof-theoretic semantics, a problem with negation and prospects for modality, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 44(6) (2015), pp. 713–727, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-013-9310-6.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-013-9310-6
N. Kürbis, Some comments on Ian Rumfitt’s bilateralism, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 45(6) (2016), pp. 623–644, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-016-9395-9.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-016-9395-9
N. Kürbis, Bilateralist detours: From intuitionist to classical logic and back, [in:] Logique et Analyse, vol. 239 (2017), pp. 301–316, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.239.0.32371556.
Google Scholar
G. Mints, Lewis’ systems and system T (1965–1973), [in:] Selected papers in proof theory, Bibliopolis (1992), pp. 221–294.
Google Scholar
G. Mints, A Short Introduction to Modal Logic, Center for the Study of Language (CSLI) (1992).
Google Scholar
M. Piazza, G. Pulcini, Fractional semantics for classical logic, The Review of Symbolic Logic, vol. 13(4) (2020), pp. 810–828, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020319000431.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020319000431
M. Piazza, G. Pulcini, M. Tesi, Linear logic in a refutational setting, unpublished manuscript.
Google Scholar
M. Piazza, G. Pulcini, M. Tesi, Fractional-valued modal logic, The Review of Symbolic Logic, (2021), p. 1–20, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020321000411.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020321000411
T. Piecha, P. Schroeder-Heister, Advances in Proof -Theoretic Semantics, Springer (2016).
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22686-6
G. Pottinger, Uniform, cut-free formulations of T, S4 and S5, Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 48(3) (1983), p. 900, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2273495.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2273495
G. Pulcini, A. Varzi, Classical logic through rejection and refutation, [in:] M. Fitting (ed.), Landscapes in logic (Vol. 2), College Publications (1992).
Google Scholar
G. Pulcini, A. C. Varzi, Proof-nets for non-theorems, forthcoming in Logica Universalis.
Google Scholar
I. Rumfitt, ‘Yes’ and ‘No’, Mind, vol. 109(436) (2000), pp. 781–823, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/109.436.781.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/109.436.781
T. Skura, Refutation systems in propositional logic, [in:] Handbook of Philosophical Logic: Volume 16, Springer (2010), pp. 115–157, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_2.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0479-4_2
H. Wansing, The idea of a proof-theoretic semantics and the meaning of the logical operations, Studia Logica, vol. 64(1) (2000), pp. 3–20, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005217827758.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005217827758
H. Wansing, A more general general proof theory, Journal of Applied Logic, vol. 25 (2017), pp. 23–46, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2017.01.002.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2017.01.002
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2023-08-16 (2)
- 2023-08-09 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
