Soft Computing

, Volume 18, Issue 7, pp 1247–1267 | Cite as

Graded consequence: an institution theoretic study



We develop a general study of graded consequence (of many-valued logic) in an institution theoretic (in the sense of Goguen and Burstall) style. This means both syntax and semantics are considered fully abstract, as well as the satisfaction between them. Our approach contrasts to other approaches on many-valued logic in that it is a multi-signature one, in the spirit of institution theory. We consider graded consequence at three different conceptual levels: entailment, semantic, and closure operators, and explore several interpretations between them. We also study logical connectors and quantifiers both at the entailment and semantic level, compactness and soundness properties.



This work has been supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0439. Thanks to Ionuţ Ţuţu for enlightening discussions around the temporal logic example.


  1. Béziau J-Y (2006) 13 questions about universal logic. Bul Sect Log 35(2/3):133–150Google Scholar
  2. Béziau J-Y (ed) (2012) Universal logic: an anthology. Studies in universal logic. Springer, BaselGoogle Scholar
  3. Burmeister P (1982) Partial algebra–an introductory survey. Algebra Univers 15:306–358CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Chakraborty MK (1988) Use of fuzzy set theory in introducing graded consequence in multiple valued logic. In: Gupta MM, Yamakawa T (eds) Fuzzy logic in knowledge-based systems. Decision and control. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North Holland, pp 247–257Google Scholar
  5. Chakraborty MK (1995) Graded consequence: further studies. J Appl Non-Class Log 5(2):127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cintula P, Hájek P (2006) On theories and models in fuzzy predicate logic. J Symb Log 71(3):832–863Google Scholar
  7. Diaconescu R (2000) Grothendieck institutions. Appl Categor Struct 10(4):383–402, 2002. Preliminary version appeared as IMAR Preprint 2-2000, ISSN:250–3638, February 2000Google Scholar
  8. Diaconescu R (2003) Institution-independent ultraproducts. Fundamenta Informaticæ 55(3–4):321–348MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Diaconescu R (2006) Proof systems for institutional logic. J Logic Comput 16(3):339–357Google Scholar
  10. Diaconescu R (2008) Institution-independent Model Theory. Birkhäuser, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Diaconescu R (2011) On quasi-varieties of multiple valued logic models. Math Logic Q 57(2):194–203CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Diaconescu R (2011) Structural induction in institutions. Info Comput 209(9):1197–1222CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Diaconescu R (2012) Three decades of institution theory. In: Béziau J-Y (ed) Universal logic: an anthology. Springer, Basel, pp 309–322Google Scholar
  14. Diaconescu R (2013) Institutional semantics for many-valued logics. Fuzzy Sets Syst 218:32–52CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutta S, Basu S, Mihir K (2013) Chakraborty. Many-valued logics, fuzzy logics and graded consequence: a comparative appraisal. In: Lodaya K (ed) ICLA 2013, vol 7750 of lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 197–209Google Scholar
  16. Eklund P, Helgesson R (2010) Monadic extensions of institutions. Fuzzy Sets Syst 161:2354–2368CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiadeiro JL, Costa JF (1996) Mirror, mirror in my hand: a duality between specifications and models of process behaviour. Math Struct Comput Sci 6(4):353–373MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiadeiro JL, Sernadas A (1988) Structuring theories on consequence. In: Sannella D, Tarlecki A (eds) Recent trends in data type specification, vol 332 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 44–72Google Scholar
  19. Galatos N, Jipsen P, Kowalski T, Ono H (2007) Residuated lattices: an algebraic glimpse at substructural logics. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerla G (2001) Fuzzy logic: mathematical tools for approximate reasoning. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  21. Goguen J (1968) The logic of inexact concepts. Synthese 19:325–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goguen J, Burstall R (1984) Introducing institutions. In: Clarke E, Kozen D (eds) Proceedings of the logics of programming workshop, vol. 164 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 221–256Google Scholar
  23. Goguen J, Burstall R (1992) Institutions: abstract model theory for specification and programming. J Assoc Comput Mach 39(1):95–146CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Grätzer G (2011) Lattice theory: foundation. Springer, BaselGoogle Scholar
  25. Hájek P (1998) Metamathematics of fuzzy logic. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. Hussmann H (1993) Nondeterminism in algebraic specifications and algebraic program. Birkhaüser, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamo Y (2003) The institution of multialgebras—a general framework for algebraic software development. Ph.D. thesis, University of BergenGoogle Scholar
  28. Mac Lane S (1998) Categories for the working mathematician, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayoh B (1985) Galleries and institutions. Technical Report DAIMI PB-191, Aarhus University Google Scholar
  30. Meseguer J (1989) General logics. In: Ebbinghaus H-D et al (eds) Proceedings, logic colloquium, 1987. North-Holland, pp 275–329Google Scholar
  31. Meseguer J (1998) Membership algebra as a logical framework for equational specification. In: Parisi-Pressice F (ed) Proceedings of the WADT’97. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1376. Springer, Berlin, pp 18–61Google Scholar
  32. Mossakowski T, Goguen J, Diaconescu R, Tarlecki A (2005) What is a logic? In: Béziau J-Y (ed) Logica universalis. Birkhäuser, Boston, pp 113–133Google Scholar
  33. Ono H (2003) Substructural logics and residuated lattices—an introduction. In: Hendricks VF, Malinowski J (eds) 50 Years of studia logica. Trends in logic, vol 20. Kluwer, Springer, Dordrecht, Berlin, pp 177–212Google Scholar
  34. Pavelka J (1979) On fuzzy logici—many-valued rules of inference. Zeitscher for Math. Logik und Grundlagen d. Math 25:45–52Google Scholar
  35. Rabe F (2013) A framework for combining model and proof theory. Math Struct Comput Sci 23(5):945–1001Google Scholar
  36. Sannella D, Tarlecki A (2012) Foundations of algebraic specifications and formal software development. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Scott D (1974) Completeness and axiomatizability in many-valued logic. In: Henkin L et al (ed) Proceedings, tarski Symposium. American Mathematical Society, pp 411–435Google Scholar
  38. Tarlecki A (1986) Bits and pieces of the theory of institutions. In: Pitt D, Abramsky S, Poigné A, Rydeheard D (eds) proceedings, summer workshop on category theory and computer programming. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 240. Springer, Berlin, pp 334–360Google Scholar
  39. Tarski A (1956) On some fundamental concepts of metamathematics. In: Woodger JH (ed) Logic, semantics, metamathematics. Oxford University Press, NY, USA, pp 30–37Google Scholar
  40. Voutsadakis G (2002) Categorical abstract algebraic logic: algebrizable institutions. Appl Categorical Struct 10:531–568CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Walicki M (1993) Algebraic specification of nondeterminism. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Informatics, University of BergenGoogle Scholar
  42. Walicki M, Meldal S (1997) Algebraic approaches to nondeterminism —an overview. ACM Comput Surv 29:30–81Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simion Stoilow Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian AcademyBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations