Archive for Mathematical Logic

, Volume 53, Issue 7–8, pp 779–808 | Cite as

Admissibility and refutation: some characterisations of intermediate logics

Article

Abstract

Refutation systems are formal systems for inferring the falsity of formulae. These systems can, in particular, be used to syntactically characterise logics. In this paper, we explore the close connection between refutation systems and admissible rules. We develop technical machinery to construct refutation systems, employing techniques from the study of admissible rules. Concretely, we provide a refutation system for the intermediate logics of bounded branching, known as the Gabbay–de Jongh logics. We show that this gives a characterisation of these logics in terms of their admissible rules. To illustrate the technique, we also provide a refutation system for Medvedev’s logic.

Keywords

Intermediate logic Admissible rules Refutation Gabbay–de Jongh logics Medvedev’s logic 

Mathematics Subject Classification

03B20 03B55 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aczel, P.H.G.: Saturated Intuitionistic Theories. In: Schütte, K., Arnold Schmidt H., Thiele, H.-J. (eds.), Contributions to Mathematical Logic Proceedings of the Logic Colloquium, Hannover 1966, volume 50 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, pp. 1–11. Elsevier (1968)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bezhanishvili, N.: De Jongh’s characterization of intuitionistic propositional calculus. In: van Benthem, J., Troelstra, A.S., Veltman, F., Visser, A. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Dick de Jongh. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bezhanishvili, N.: Lattices of intermediate and cylindric modal logics. PhD thesis, Amsterdam University (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bezhanishvili N., de Jongh D.: Extendible formulas in two variables in intuitionistic logic. Stud. Log. 100, 61–89 (2012). doi:10.1007/s11225-012-9389-8 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chagrov A., Zakharyaschev M.: The disjunction property of intermediate propositional logics. Stud. Log. 50(2), 189–216 (1991). doi:10.1007/BF00370182 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chagrov A., Zakharyaschev M.: Modal Logic, volume 77 of Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cintula P., Metcalfe G.: Admissible rules in the implication-negation fragment of intuitionistic logic. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 162(2), 162–171 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.apal.2010.09.001 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Citkin A.: On admissible rules of intuitionistic propositional logic. Math. USSR Sb. 31(2), 279–288 (1977). doi:10.1070/SM1977v031n02ABEH002303 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Citkin, A.: Open image in new window(English translation of title: On verification of admissibility of some rules of intuitionistic logic). V-th All-Union Conference in Mathematical Logic, p.162. Novosibirsk (1979a)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Citkin, A.: Open image in new window(English translation of title: On modal logic of intuitionistic admissibility). Modal and Tense Logic, Second Soviet-Finnish Colloquium in Logic, pp. 105ΓÇô107. Moscow (1979b)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Citkin, Alexander: A mind of a non-countable set of ideas. Logic Log. Philos. 17 (1–2) (2008). doi:10.12775/LLP.2008.003
  12. 12.
    Citkin A.: A note on admissible rules and the disjunction property in intermediate logics. Arch. Math. Logic 51, 1–14 (2012). doi:10.1007/s00153-011-0250-y MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Jongh, Dick, H.J.: Investigations on the Intuitionistic Propositional Calculus. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1968)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dutkiewicz R.: The method of axiomatic rejection for the intuitionistic propositional logic. Stud. Log. 48(4), 449–459 (1989). doi:10.1007/BF00370199 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Friedman H.: One hundred and two problems in mathematical logic. J. Symb. Logic 40(2), 113–129 (1975). doi:10.2307/2271891 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gabbay D.M., de Jongh D.H.J.: A sequence of decidable finitely axiomatizable intermediate logics with the disjunction property. J. Symb. Logic 39(1), 67–78 (1974). doi:10.2307/2272344 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghilardi S.: Unification in intuitionistic logic. J. Symb. Logic 64(2), 859–880 (1999). doi:10.2307/2586506 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glivenko V.: Sur quelques points de la logique de M. Brouwer. Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences de l’Académie Royale de Belgique 15(5), 183–188 (1929)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gödel K.: Zum intuitionistischen Aussagenkalkül. Akademie der Wissenschaftischen in Wien, Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, Anzeiger 69, 65–66 (1932)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goranko V.: Refutation systems in modal logic. Stud. Log. 53(2), 299–324 (1994). doi:10.1007/BF01054714 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goudsmit, J.P.: A note on extensions: admissible rules via semantics. In: Artemov S., Nerode, A. (eds.) Logical Foundations of Computer Science, volume 7734 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 206–218. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2013a). ISBN:978-3-642-35721-3. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35722-0_15
  22. 22.
    Goudsmit, J.P.: The admissible rules of \({{\sf BD}_2}\) and \({{\sf GSc}}\). Logic Group Prepr. Ser. 313, 1–23 (2013b). http://phil.uu.nl/preprints/lgps/number/313. To appear in Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic
  23. 23.
    Goudsmit J.P., Iemhoff R.: On unification and admissible rules in Gabbay–de Jongh logics. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 165(2), 652–672 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.apal.2013.09.003 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grigolia, R.: Free and projective heyting and monadic Heyting algebras. In: Höhle, U., Klement, E.P. (eds.) Non-Classical Logics and their Applications to Fuzzy Subsets, volume 32 of Theory and Decision Library, pp. 33–52. Springer Netherlands (1995). ISBN:978-94-010-4096-9. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-0215-5_4
  25. 25.
    Harrop R.: Concerning formulas of the types \({A \rightarrow A \vee B, A \rightarrow (\exists x)B(x)}\) in intuitionistic formal systems. J. Symb. Logic 25(1), 27–32 (1960). doi:10.2307/2964334 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Iemhoff R.: On the admissible rules of intuitionistic propositional logic. J. Symb. Logic 66(1), 281–294 (2001). doi:10.2307/2694922 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Iemhoff, R.: A(nother) characterization of intuitionistic propositional logic. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 113(1–3):161–173 (2001b). doi:10.1016/S0168-0072(01)00056-2. First St. Petersburg Conference on Days of Logic and Computability
  28. 28.
    Iemhoff R.: Intermediate logics and Visser’s rules. Notre Dame J. Form. Logic 46(1), 65–81 (2005). doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1107220674 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iemhoff, R.: A note on consequence. Logic Group Prepr. Ser. 314 (2013). http://www.phil.uu.nl/preprints/lgps/number/314
  30. 30.
    Jankov V.A.: Some superconstructive propositional calculi. Sov. Math. Dokl. 4, 1103–1105 Translation of Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 151, 796–798 (1963)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jeřábek E.: Admissible rules of modal logics. J. Logic Comput. 15(4), 411–431 (2005). doi:10.1093/logcom/exi029 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jeřábek E.: Bases of admissible rules of łukasiewicz logic. J. Logic Comput. 20(6), 1149–1163 (2010). doi:10.1093/logcom/exp082 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johansson I.: Der Minimalkalkül, ein reduzierter intuitionistischer Formalismus. Compos. Math. 4, 119–136 (1937)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kleene S.C.: Disjunction and existence under implication in elementary intuitionistic formalisms. J. Symb. Logic 27(1), 11–18 (1962). doi:10.2307/2963675 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kracht M.: Book review: V. V. Rybakov. Admissibility of logical inference rules. Notre Dame J. Form. Logic 40(4), 578–587 (1999). doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1012429722 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kreisel G., Putnam H.W.: Eine Unableitbarkeitsbeweismethode für den Intuitionistischen Aussagenkalkül. Archiv für mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung 3, 74–78 (1957). doi:10.1007/BF01988049 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Levin L.A.: Some syntactical theorems on the Yu. T. Medvedev’s calculus of finite problems. Doklady Academii Nauk SSSR (Soviet Mathematics, Doklady) 185(1), 32–33 Translation of Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 185, 32–33 (1969)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lorenzen P.: Einführung in die operative Logik und Mathematik, volume 78 of Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen. Springer, Berlin (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Łukasiewicz J.: Artistotle’s Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1951)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Łukasiewicz J.: On the intuitionistic theory of deduction. Indag. Math. 14, 202–212 (1952)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maksimova L.L.: On maximal intermediate logics with the disjunction property. Stud. Log. 45(1), 69–75 (1986). doi:10.1007/BF01881550 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Minari P., Wroński A.: The property (HD) in intermediate logics. A partial solution of a problem of H. Ono. Rep. Math. Logic 22, 21–25 (1988)MATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mints G.E.: Derivability of admissible rules. J. Math. Sci. 6, 417–421 (1976). doi:10.1007/BF01084082 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Prucnal T.: On two problems of Harvey Friedman. Stud. Log. 38, 247–262 (1979). doi:10.1007/BF00405383 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rozière, P.: Règles admissibles en calcul propositionnel intuitionniste. PhD thesis, Université de Paris VII (1992)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rybakov V.V.: A criterion for admissibility of rules in the model system S4 and the intuitionistic logic. Algebra Logic 23, 369–384 (1984). doi:10.1007/BF01982031 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rybakov V.V., Terziler M., Gencer C.: An essay on unification and inference rules for modal logics. Bull. Sect. Logic 23(3), 145–157 (1999)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Scott, D.: Completeness Proofs for the Intuitionistic Sentential Calculus. Communications Research Division, Institute for Defence Analyses, second edition 25 July 1960 edition, pp. 231–241 (1957)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Scott D.: On engendering an illusion of understanding. J. Philos. 68(21), 787–807 (1971). doi:10.2307/2024952 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Scott, D.: Completeness and axiomatizability in many-valued logic. In: Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium, volume 25 of Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, pp. 411–435 (1974)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Segerberg K.: Review: C.G. McKay, A note on the Jaskowski sequence. J. Symb. Logic 38(3), 520–521 (1973). doi:10.2307/2273058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Skura T.F.: A complete syntactical characterization of the intuitionistic logic. Rep. Math. Logic 23, 75–80 (1989)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Skura T.F.: A new criterion of decidability for intermediate logics. Bull. Sect. Logic 19(1), 10–14 (1990)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Skura T.F.: Refutation calculi for certain intermediate propositional logics. Notre Dame J. Form. Logic 33(4), 552–560 (1992). doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1093634486 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Skura T.F.: Syntactic refutations against finite models in modal logic. Notre Dame J. Form. Logic 35(4), 595–605 (1994). doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1040408615 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Skura, T.F.: Aspects of refutation procedures in the intuitionistic logic and related modal systems, volume 15 of Logika. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego (1999). ISBN:83-229-1985-9Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Skura T.F.: Intuitionistic socratic procedures. J. Appl. Non Class. Logics 15(4), 453–464 (2005). doi:10.3166/jancl.15.453-464 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Skura T.F.: A refutation theory. Log. Universalis 3, 293–302 (2009). doi:10.1007/s11787-009-0009-y MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Słupecki J., Bryll G.: Proof of ł-decidability of Lewis system S5. Stud. Log. 32(1), 99–105 (1973). doi:10.1007/BF02123824 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Słupecki J., Bryll G., Wybraniec-Skardowska U.: Theory of rejected propositions. I. Stud. Log. 29(1), 75–115 (1971). doi:10.1007/BF02121863 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Słupecki J., Bryll G., Wybraniec-Skardowska U.: The theory of rejected propositions II. Stud. Log. 30(1), 97–139 (1972). doi:10.1007/BF02120839 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Smoryński, C.: Applications of Kripke models. In: Troelstra, A.S. (eds.) Metamathematical Investigation of Intuitionistic Arithmetic and Analysis, volume 344 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pp. 324–391. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg (1973). doi:10.1007/BFb0066744
  63. 63.
    Surma S.J., Wroński A., Zachorowski S.: On Jaśkowski-type semantics for the intuitionistic propositional logic. Stud. Log. 34(2), 145–148 (1975). doi:10.1007/BF02123383 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Troelstra, A.S., van Dalen, D.: Logic. In: Constructivism in Mathematics—An Introduction, volume 121 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, pp. 35–111. Elsevier (1988). doi:10.1016/S0049-237X(09)70527-0
  65. 65.
    Visser, A.: Evaluation, provably deductive equivalence in Heyting’s arithmetic of substitution instances of propositional formulas. Logic Group Prepr. Ser. 4, 1984. http://phil.uu.nl/preprints/lgps/number/4
  66. 66.
    Visser A.: Substitutions of \({\Sigma^1_0}\) -sentences: explorations between intuitionistic propositional logic and intuitionistic arithmetic. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 114(1–3), 227–271 (2002). doi:10.1016/S0168-0072(01)00081-1 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wójcicki, R.: Theory of Logical Calculi: Basic Theory of Consequence Operations, volume 199 of Synthese Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Berlin. ISBN:978-90-277-2785-5 (1988)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wojtylak P.: On a problem of H. Friedman and its solution by T. Prucnal. Rep. Math. Logic 38, 69–86 (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wroński A.: Intermediate logics and the disjunction property. Rep. Math. Logic 1, 39–51 (1973)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations