Studia Logica

, Volume 80, Issue 2–3, pp 393–430 | Cite as

Nelson's Negation on the Base of Weaker Versions of Intuitionistic Negation

Article

Abstract

Constructive logic with Nelson negation is an extension of the intuitionistic logic with a special type of negation expressing some features of constructive falsity and refutation by counterexample. In this paper we generalize this logic weakening maximally the underlying intuitionistic negation. The resulting system, called subminimal logic with Nelson negation, is studied by means of a kind of algebras called generalized N-lattices. We show that generalized N-lattices admit representation formalizing the intuitive idea of refutation by means of counterexamples giving in this way a counterexample semantics of the logic in question and some of its natural extensions. Among the extensions which are near to the intuitionistic logic are the minimal logic with Nelson negation which is an extension of the Johansson's minimal logic with Nelson negation and its in a sense dual version — the co-minimal logic with Nelson negation. Among the extensions near to the classical logic are the well known 3-valued logic of Lukasiewicz, two 12-valued logics and one 48-valued logic. Standard questions for all these logics — decidability, Kripke-style semantics, complete axiomatizability, conservativeness are studied. At the end of the paper extensions based on a new connective of self-dual conjunction and an analog of the Lukasiewicz middle value ½ have also been considered.

Keywords

Nelson negation subminimal logic counterexample semantics many-valued logics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    ARIELI, O., and A. AVRON, ‘Reasoning with logical bilattices’, Journal of Logic Language and Information, 5:25–63, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    BIA LYNICKI-BIRULA, A., and H. RASIOWA, ‘On constructible falsity in constructive logic with strong negation’, Colloquium Mathematicum, 6:287–310, 1958.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    DUNN, J.M., ‘Generalized ortho negation’, in H. Wansing, Walter de Gruyer, (eds.), Negation, A notion in Focus, pp. 3–26, Berlin, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    FIDEL, M.M., ‘An algebraic study of a propositional system of Nelson’, in Mathematical Logic, Proc. of the First Brasilian Conference, Campinas 1977, Lecture Notes in pure Appl. Math., 39, pp. 99–117, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    FITTING, M., ‘Bilattices and the semantics of logic programming’, Journal of logic programming, 11(2):91–116, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    GARGOV, G., ‘Knowledge, uncertainty and ignorance in logic: bilattices and beyond’, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 9:195–283, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    GORANKO, V., ‘The Craig Interpolation Theorem for Propositional Logics with Strong Negation’, Studia Logica, 44:291–317, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    KRACHT, M., ‘On extensions of intermediate logics by strong negation’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 27:49–73, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    LUKASIEWICZ, J., ‘O logice trójwartościowej’, Ruch Filozoficzny, 5:170–171, 1920.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    LUKASIEWICZ, J., ‘A system of Modal Logic’, The Journal of Computing Systems, 1:111–149 1953.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    LUKASIEWICZ, J., Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    MARKOV, A. A., ‘Constructive Logic’, (in Russian), Uspekhi Matematicheskih Nauk 5:187–188, 1950.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    NELSON, D., ‘Constructible falsity’, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 14:16–26, 1949.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    ODINTSOV, S. P., ‘Algebraic semantics for paraconsistent Nelson's Logic’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(4):453–468, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    ODINTSOV, S.P., ‘On the Representation of N4-Lattices’, Studia Logica, 76(3):385405, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    PEARCE, D. and G. WAGNER, ‘Reasoning with negative information, I: Strong negation in logic programs’, Language, Knowledge and Intensionality (Acta Filosophica Fenica), Helsinki, 49:405–439, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    PEARCE, D., and G. WAGNER, ‘Logic programming with strong negation’, in P. Schroeder-Heister, (ed.), Extensions of Logic Programming, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, No. 475, pp. 311–326, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    PYNKO, A. P., ‘Functional completeness and axiomatizability within Belnap's four-valued logic and its expansions’, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 9:61–105, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    RASIOWA, H., ‘N-lattices and constructive logic with strong negation’, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 46:61–80, 1958.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Rasiowa, H., An algebraic approach to non-classical logic, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, London, 1974.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    SENDLEWSKI, A., ‘Some investigations of varieties of N-lattices’, Studia Logica, 43:257–280, 1984.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    SENDLEWSKI, A., ‘Nelson algebras through Heyting ones’, Studia Logica, 49:106–126, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    VAKARELOV, D., ‘Ekstensionalnye Logiki’, (in Russian), Doklady BAN, 25:1609–1612, 1972.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    VAKARELOV, D., ‘Models for constructive logic with strong negation’, V Balkan Mathematical Congress, Abstracts, Beograd, 1974, 298.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    VAKARELOV, D., ‘Obobschennye reshetki Nelsona’, Chetvertaya Vsesoyuznaya Conferenciya po Matematicheskoy Logike, tezisy dokladov i soobschtenii, Kishinev, 1976.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    VAKARELOV, D., Theory of Negation in Certain Logical Systems. Algebraic and Semantical Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Warsaw, 1976.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    VAKARELOV, D., ‘Notes on N-lattices and constructive logic with strong negation’, Studia Logica 36:109–125, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    VAKARELOV, D., ‘Intuitive Semantics for Some Three-valued Logics Connected with Information, Contrariety and subcontrariety’, Studia Logica, 48(4):565–575, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    VAKARELOV, D., ‘Consistency, Completeness and Negation’, in Gr. Priest, R. Routley and J. Norman, (eds.), Paraconsistent Logic. Essays on the Inconsistent, pp. 328–363, Analiytica, Philosophia Verlag, Munhen, 1989.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    VOROB'EV, N.N., ‘Constructive propositional calculus with strong negation’, (in Russian), Doklady Academii Nauk SSSR, 85:456–468, 1952.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    VOROB'EV, N.N., ‘The problem of provability in constructive propositional calculus with strong negation’, (in Russian), Doklady Academii Nauk SSSR, 85:689–692, 1952.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    VOROB'EV, N.N., ‘Constructive propositional calculus with strong negation’, wide(in Russian), Transactions of Steklov's institute, 72:195–227, 1964.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical Logic with Laboratory for Applied Logic Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceSofia UniversitySofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations