The Method of Socratic Proofs Meets Correspondence Analysis

Authors

Dorota Leszczyńska-Jasion Department of Logic and Cognitive Science, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Yaroslav Petrukhin Department of Logic, Faculty of Philosophy, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Vasilyi Shangin Department of Logic, Faculty of Philosophy, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.48.2.02

Keywords:

Socratic proofs, correspondence analysis, invertible rule, inferential erotetic logic, classical propositional logic, sequent calculus

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to propose correspondence analysis as a technique for generating the so-called erotetic (i.e. pertaining to the logic of questions) calculi which constitute the method of Socratic proofs by Andrzej Wiśniewski. As we explain in the paper, in order to successfully design an erotetic calculus one needs invertible sequent-calculus-style rules. For this reason, the proposed correspondence analysis resulting in invertible rules can constitute a new foundation for the method of Socratic proofs.

Correspondence analysis is Kooi and Tamminga's technique for designing proof systems. In this paper it is used to consider sequent calculi with non-branching (the only exception being the rule of cut), invertible rules for the negation fragment of classical propositional logic and its extensions by binary Boolean functions.

References

[1] F. G. Asenjo, A calculus of antinomies, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 7, no. 1 (1966), pp. 103–105. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093958482

[2] N. D. Belnap, A useful four-valued logic, Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, ed. by J. M. Dunn, G. Epstein. Boston, Reidel Publishing Company, 1977, pp. 7–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1161-7_2

[3] N. D. Belnap, How a computer should think, Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, ed. by G. Rule. Stocksfield, Oriel Press, 1977, pp. 30–56.

[4] S. Bonzio, J. Gil-Férez, F. Paoli, L. Peruzzi, On Paraconsistent Weak Kleene Logic: Axiomatisation and Algebraic Analysis, Studia Logica, vol. 105, no. 2 (2017), pp. 253–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-016-9689-5

[5] S. Chlebowski, Canonical and Dual Erotetic Calculi for First-Order Logic, PhD thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland, 2018. (Unpublished manuscript, previously referred to as „The Method of Socratic Proofs for Classical Logic and Some Non-Classical Logics").

[6] S. Chlebowski, D. Leszczyńska-Jasion, Dual Erotetic Calculi and the Minimal LFI, Studia Logica, vol. 103, no. 6 (2015), pp. 1245–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-015-9617-0

[7] J. M. Dunn, Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailment and coupled trees, Philosophical Studies, vol. 29, no. 3 (1976), pp. 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00373152

[8] M. Fitting, First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, New York, Springer-Verlag, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2360-3

[9] S. Halldén, The Logic of Nonsense. Lundequista Bokhandeln, Uppsala, 1949.

[10] Ch. Hamblin, Questions, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 36, no. 3 (1958), pp. 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048405885200211

[11] D. Harrah, The logic of questions, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, ed. by D. M. Gabbay, F. Guenthner, second edition. Springer, 2002, pp. 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0387-2_1

[12] A. Karpenko, N. Tomova, Bochvar's three-valued logic and literal paralogics: Their lattice and functional equivalence, Logic and Logical Philosophy, vol. 26, no. 2 (2017), pp. 207–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2016.029

[13] S. C. Kleene, Introduction to metamathematics, Sixth Reprint, Wolters-Noordhoff Publishing and North-Holland Publishing Company, 1971.

[14] S. C. Kleene, On a notation for ordinal numbers, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 3, no. 1 (1938), pp. 150–155. https://doi.org/10.2307/2267778

[15] B. Kooi, A. Tamminga, Completeness via correspondence for extensions of the logic of paradox, The Review of Symbolic Logic, vol. 5, no. 4 (2012), pp. 720–730. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020312000196

[16] T. Kubiński, An Outline of the Logical Theory of Questions, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1980.

[17] T. Kubiński, Wstęp do logicznej teorii pytań, Warszawa, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1971.

[18] E. Kubyshkina, D. Zaitsev, Rational agency from a truth-functional perspective, Logic and Logical Philosophy, vol. 25, no. 4 (2016), pp. 499–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2016.016

[19] D. Leszczyńska, Socratic Proofs for some Normal Modal Propositional Logics, Logique et Analyse, vol. 47, no. 185–188 (2004), pp. 259–285.

[20] D. Leszczyńska-Jasion, From Questions to Proofs. Between the Logic of Questions and Proof Theory, Poznań, AMU Faculty of Social Sciences Publishers, 2018.

[21] D. Leszczyńska-Jasion, The Method of Socratic Proofs for Modal Propositional Logics: K5, S4.2, S4.3, S4M, S4F, S4R and G, Studia Logica, vol. 89, no. 3 (2008), pp. 371–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-008-9134-5

[22] D. Leszczyńska-Jasion, Y. Petrukhin, V. Shangin, M. Jukiewicz, Functional completeness in CPL via correspondence analysis, Bulletin of the Section of Logic, vol. 48, no. 1 (2019), pp. 45–76. https://doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.48.1.04

[23] Y. Petrukhin, Correspondence analysis for first degree entailment, Logical Investigations, vol. 22, no. 1 (2016), pp. 108–124.

[24] Y. Petrukhin, Correspondence analysis for logic of rational agent, Chelyabinsk Physical and Mathematical Journal, vol. 2, no. 3 (2017), pp. 329–337. http://cpmj.csu.ru/index.php/cpmj/article/view/102/94

[25] Y. Petrukhin, Generalized Correspondence Analysis for Three-Valued Logics, Logica Universalis, vol. 12, no. 3–4 (2018), pp. 423–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-018-0212-9

[26] Y. Petrukhin, V. Shangin, Automated correspondence analysis for the binary extensions of the logic of paradox, The Review of Symbolic Logic, vol. 10, no. 4 (2017), pp. 756–781. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020317000156

[27] Y. Petrukhin, V. Shangin, Automated proof searching for strong Kleene logic and its binary extensions via correspondence analysis, Logic and Logical Philosophy, online fist papers. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2018.009

[28] Y. Petrukhin, V. Shangin, Completeness via correspondence for extensions of paraconsistent weak Kleene logic, The Proceedings of the 10th Smirnov Readings in Logic (2017), pp. 114–115. http://smirnovreadings.ru/upload/iblock/481/srl2017-final.pdf

[29] Y. Petrukhin, V. Shangin, Correspondence Analysis and Automated Proof searching for First Degree Entailment, European Journal of Mathematics, accepted, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40879-019-00344-5

[30] Y. Petrukhin, V. Shangin, Natural three-valued logics characterised by natural deduction, Logique et Analyse, vol. 244 (2018), pp. 407–427.

[31] G. Priest, The logic of paradox, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, no. 1 (1979), pp. 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258428

[32] D. J. Shoesmith, T. J. Smiley, Multiple-Conclusion Logic, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511565687

[33] A. Tamminga, Correspondence analysis for strong three-valued logic, Logical Investigations, vol. 20 (2014), pp. 255–268.

[34] N. E. Tomova, A lattice of implicative extensions of regular Kleene's logics, Reports on Mathematical Logic, vol. 47 (2012), pp. 173–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.4467/20842589RM.12.008.0689

[35] A. Wiśniewski, Questions and Inferences, Logique et Analyse, vol. 173–175 (2001), pp. 5–43.

[36] A. Wiśniewski, Questions, Inferences, and Scenarios, London, College Publications, 2013.

[37] A. Wiśniewski, Socratic Proofs, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 33 (2004), pp. 299–326. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LOGI.0000031374.60945.6e

[38] A. Wiśniewski, The Posing of Questions: Logical Foundations of Erotetic Inferences, Dordrecht, Boston, London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8406-7

[39] A. Wiśniewski, Semantics of Questions, [in:] The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. S. Lappin, Ch. Fox, second edition, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015, pp. 273–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch9

[40] A. Wiśniewski, V. Shangin, Socratic Proofs for Quantifiers, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 35, no. 2 (2006), pp. 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-005-9000-0

[41] A. Wiśniewski, G. Vanackere, D. Leszczyńska, Socratic Proofs and Paraconsistency: A Case Study, Studia Logica, vol. 80, no. 2–3 (2004), pp. 433–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-005-8477-4

Downloads

PDF

Published

2019-06-30

How to Cite

Leszczyńska-Jasion, D., Petrukhin, Y., & Shangin, V. (2019). The Method of Socratic Proofs Meets Correspondence Analysis. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 48(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.48.2.02

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 48 No. 2 (2019)

Section

Research Article

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Crossref

Scopus

Google Scholar

Europe PMC

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Szymon Chlebowski, Dorota Leszczyńska-Jasion, An Investigation into Intuitionistic Logic with Identity , Bulletin of the Section of Logic: Vol. 48 No. 4 (2019)
Dorota Leszczyńska-Jasion, Yaroslav Petrukhin, Vasilyi Shangin, Marcin Jukiewicz, Functional Completeness in CPL via Correspondence Analysis , Bulletin of the Section of Logic: Vol. 48 No. 1 (2019)
Krystyna Mruczek-Nasieniewska, Yaroslav Petrukhin, Vasily Shangin, On Paracomplete Versions of Jaśkowski's Discussive Logic , Bulletin of the Section of Logic: Vol. 53 No. 1 (2024)