Skip to main content
Log in

Two Kinds of Consequential Implication

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The first section of the paper establishes the minimal properties of so-called consequential implication and shows that they are satisfied by at least two different operators of decreasing strength (symbolized by \(\rightarrow \) and \(\Rightarrow \)). Only the former has been analyzed in recent literature, so the paper focuses essentially on the latter. Both operators may be axiomatized in systems which are shown to be translatable into standard systems of normal modal logic. The central result of the paper is that the minimal consequential system for \(\Rightarrow \), CI\(\Rightarrow \), is definitionally equivalent to the deontic system KD and is intertranslatable with the minimal consequential system for \(\rightarrow \), CI. The main drawback ot the weaker operator \(\Rightarrow \) is that it lacks unrestricted contraposition, but the final section of the paper argues that \(\Rightarrow \) has some properties which make it a valuable alternative to \(\rightarrow \), turning out especially plausible as a basis for the definition of operators representing synthetic (i.e. context-dependent) conditionals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Angell, R. B., A Propositional Logic with Subjunctive Conditionals, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 27: 327–343, 1962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Åqvist, L., Modal Logic with Subjunctive Conditional and Dispositional Predicates, Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 1–76, 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Duncan Jones, A. E., Is strict implication the same as entailment? Analysis 2: 70–78, 1935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson, W. E., Logic, Cambridge U.P. (reprint Dover 1964), 1921.

  5. Kneale, W. C., and M. Kneale, The Development of Logic, Clarendon U.P., 1962.

  6. Mccall, S., Connexive Implication, Journal of Symbolic Logic 31: 415–433, 1966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mccall, S., Connexive Class Logic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 32: 83–90, 1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mccall, S., Connexive Implication, in A. R. Anderson and N. Belnap, Entailment, vol. I, Princeton U.P., 1975, pp. 434–452.

  9. Montgomery, M. and R. Routley, On systems containing Aristotle’s Thesis, Journal of Symbolic Logic 33: 82–96, 1968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nasti De Vincentis, M., Connexive Implication in a Chrysippean Setting, in C. Cellucci, M. Di Maio, and G. Roncaglia (eds.), Logica e filosofia della scienza: problemi e prospettive, Pisa, ETS, 1994, pp. 595–603.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nasti De Vincentis, M., Logiche della connessività, Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern, 2002.

  12. Parry, W. T., Ein Axiomsystem fur eine neue Art von Implikation, Ergebnisse eindes Mathematischen Kolloquims 4: 5–6, 1933.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pizzi, C., Una procedura di decisione mediante tableaux per una logica connessiva debole, Boll. Un.Calabria 4: 131–142, 1982–83.

  14. Pizzi, C., Decision Procedures for Logics of Consequential Implication, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 32: 618–636, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pizzi, C., Weak vs Strong Boethius’ Thesis: a Problem in the analysis of Consequential implication, in A. Ursini and P. Aglianò (eds.), Logic and Algebra, M. Dekker Inc. NY, 1996, pp. 646–654.

  16. Pizzi, C., A Modal Framework for Consequential Implicaton and the Factor Law, Contemporary Mathematics 235: 313–326, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pizzi, C., Aristotle’s Thesis between Paraconsistency and Modalization, Journal of Applied Logic 3: 119–131, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pizzi, C., and T. Williamson, Strong Boethius’ Thesis and Consequential Implication, Journal of Philosophical Logic 26: 569–588, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wansing, H., Connexive Logic, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/logic--connexive/.

  20. Williamson, T., Verification, Falsification and Cancellation in KT, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 31: 286–290, 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio E. A. Pizzi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pizzi, C.E.A. Two Kinds of Consequential Implication. Stud Logica 106, 453–480 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-017-9749-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-017-9749-5

Keywords

Navigation