Skip to main content

Generalized Truth Values and Many-Valued Logics: Harmonious Many-Valued Logics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Truth and Falsehood

Part of the book series: Trends in Logic ((TREN,volume 36))

  • 922 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we reconsider the notion of an \(n\)-valued propositional logic. In many-valued logic, sometimes a distinction is made not only between designated and undesignated (not designated) truth values, but also between designated and antidesignated truth values. Even if the set of truth values is, in fact, tripartitioned, usually only a single semantic consequence relation is defined that preserves the possession of a designated value from the premises to the conclusions of an inference. We argue that if in the set of semantical values the sets of designated and antidesignated truth values are not complements of each other, it is natural to define at least \(two\) entailment relations, a “positive” one that preserves the possession of a designated value from the premises to the conclusions of an inference, and a “negative” one that preserves the possession of an antidesignated value from the conclusions to the premises. Once this distinction has been drawn, it is quite natural to reflect it in the logical object language and to contemplate many-valued logics \(\Uplambda\) whose language is split into a positive and a matching negative logical vocabulary. If the positive and the negative entailment relations do not coincide, if the interpretations of matching pairs of connectives are distinct, and if the positive entailment relation restricted to the positive vocabulary is nevertheless isomorphic to the negative entailment relation restricted to the negative vocabulary, then we say that \(\Uplambda\) is a \(harmonious\) many-valued logic. We reconstruct some of the logical systems considered in this book as harmonious, finitely-valued logics. At the end of the chapter, we outline some possible ways of generalizing the notion of a harmonious \(n\)-valued propositional logic.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    At least there was no such interpretation at the time of the writing of [124].

  2. 2.

    Incidentally, this distinction is relevant for an assessment of Suszko’s Thesis, see [246], the claim that “there are but two logical values, true and false” [43, p. 169], which is given formal contents by the so-called Suszko Reduction, the proof that every Tarskian \(n\)-valued propositional logic is also characterized by a bivalent semantics. For a recent treatment and references to the literature, see [43]. A critical discussion of Suszko’s Thesis will be presented in the next chapter.

  3. 3.

    On p. 30 of [125] he explains (notation adjusted):

    Even in the case that \({{\fancyscript{D}}}^+\neq \varnothing\) and \({{\fancyscript{D}}}^-\neq \varnothing\) it is, however, not necessarily \({{\fancyscript{D}}}^+\cup{{\fancyscript{D}}}^-={{\fancyscript{V}}},\) which means that together with designated and antidesignated truth degrees also \(undesignated\) truth degrees may exist. This possibility indicates two essentially different positions regarding the designation of truth degrees. The first one assumes only a binary division of the set of truth degrees and can proceed by simply marking a set of designated truth degrees, treating the undesignated ones like antidesignated ones. The second position assumes a tripartition and marks some truth degrees as designated, some others as antidesignated, and has besides these both types, also some undesignated truth degrees\(\ldots\)

  4. 4.

    Cf., for instance, the values N and B under the order \({\leq }_t\) in the four-valued logic \(B_4\) considered in Sect. 8.4.

  5. 5.

    And of course, a conjunction should maximize the non-truth of the conjuncts, while a disjunction should minimize the non-truth of the disjuncts.

  6. 6.

    Rescher [207, p. 67] seems to interpret the fact that the logic \(LP\) has no contradictions as a reason for distinguishing between antidesignated and undesignated values because in \(LP\) no formula receives an undesignated truth value under any valuation.

  7. 7.

    Note that \(n \geq 1.\)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaroslav Shramko .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shramko, Y., Wansing, H. (2011). Generalized Truth Values and Many-Valued Logics: Harmonious Many-Valued Logics. In: Truth and Falsehood. Trends in Logic, vol 36. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0907-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics