Studia Logica

, Volume 100, Issue 4, pp 753–785 | Cite as

A Generalized Syllogistic Inference System based on Inclusion and Exclusion Relations

Article

Abstract

We introduce a simple inference system based on two primitive relations between terms, namely, inclusion and exclusion relations. We present a normalization theorem, and then provide a characterization of the structure of normal proofs. Based on this, inferences in a syllogistic fragment of natural language are reconstructed within our system. We also show that our system can be embedded into a fragment of propositional minimal logic.

Keywords

Syllogistic logic Proof theory Natural deduction Normalization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Corcoran, J., Aristotle’s natural deduction system, in J. Corcoran (ed.), Ancient Logic and its Modern Interpretations, D. Reidel, 1974, pp. 85–131.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Francez N., Dyckhoff R., Ben-Avi G.: Proof-theoretic semantics for subsentential phrases. Studia Logica 94, 381–401 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gentzen, G., Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen, Mathematische Zeitschrift 39: 176–210, 405–431, 1935. (M. Szabo, ed. and trans, Investigations into logical deduction, in The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, North Holland, 1969.)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Łukasiewicz J.: Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, Second edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1957)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MacCartney, B., and C. Manning, Modeling semantic containment and exclusion in natural language inference, The 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling-08), 2008, pp. 140–156.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mineshima, K., M. Okada, and R. Takemura, Conservativity for a hierarchy of Euler and Venn reasoning systems, Visual Languages and Logic 2009, CEUR Series Vol. 510, 2009, pp. 37–61.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mineshima, K., M. Okada, and R. Takemura, A diagrammatic inference system with Euler circles, to appear in Journal of Logic, Language and Information.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mineshima, K., M. Okada, and R. Takemura, Two types of diagrammatic inference systems: natural deduction style and resolution style, in A. K. Goel, M. Jamnik, and N. H. Narayanan (eds.), Diagrams 2010, LNAI 6170, Springer, 2010, pp. 99–114.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mineshima, K., M. Okada, and R. Takemura, Formalizing inferences with Euler diagrams in terms of inclusion and exclusion relations: a proof-theoretical approach, submitted.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montague, R., Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, R. Thomason (ed.), Yale University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moss, L. S., Completeness theorems for syllogistic fragments, in F.Hamm and S. Kepser (eds.), Logics for Linguistic Structures, Mouton de Gruyter, 2008, 143–173.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moss L. S.: Syllogistic logics with verbs. Journal of Logic and Computation 20, 947–967 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nishihara N., Morita K., Iwata S.: An extended syllogistic system with verbs and proper nouns, and its completeness proof. Systems Computer Japan 21, 96–111 (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pratt-Hartmann I., Moss L. S.: Logics for the relational syllogistic. Review of Symbolic Logic 2, 647–683 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prawitz, D., Natural Deduction, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1965 (Dover, 2006).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sánchez Valencia, V., Studies on Natural Logic and Categorial Grammar, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smiley T.: What is a syllogism?. Journal of Philosophical Logic 1, 136–154 (1974)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Troelstra, A. S., and H. Schwichtenberg, Basic Proof Theory, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Benthem, J., Essays in logical semantics. D.Reidel, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Westerståhl D.: Aristotelian syllogisms and generalized quantifiers. Studia Logica XLVIII, 577–585 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Keio UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Keio UniversityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Nihon UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations