Studia Logica

, Volume 107, Issue 2, pp 313–349 | Cite as

Rasiowa–Sikorski Deduction Systems with the Rule of Cut: A Case Study

  • Dorota Leszczyńska-JasionEmail author
  • Mateusz Ignaszak
  • Szymon Chlebowski
Open Access


This paper presents Rasiowa–Sikorski deduction systems (R–S systems) for logics \(\mathsf {CPL}\), \(\mathsf {CLuN}\), \(\mathsf {CLuNs}\) and \(\mathsf {mbC}\). For each of the logics two systems are developed: an R–S system that can be supplemented with admissible cut rule, and a \(\mathbf {KE}\)-version of R–S system in which the non-admissible rule of cut is the only branching rule. The systems are presented in a Smullyan-like uniform notation, extended and adjusted to the aims of this paper. Completeness is proved by the use of abstract refutability properties which are dual to consistency properties used by Fitting. Also the notion of admissibility of a rule in an R–S-system is analysed.


R–S system The rule of cut Paraconsistent logics \(\mathbf {KE}\) tableau system Inferential erotetic logic 


  1. 1.
    Agudelo-Agudelo, J.C., Translating Non-classical Logics into Classical Logic by Using Hidden Variables. Logica Universalis 11(2):205–224, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batens, D., Paraconsistent extensional propositional logics. Logique et Analyse 90–91:195–234, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batens, D., Inconsistency-adaptive logics. In E. Orłowska, (ed.), Logic at Work. Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Helena Rasiowa, Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp. 445–472.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batens, D., and K. De Clercq, A Rich Paraconsistent Extension of Full Positive Logic. Logique et Analyse 185–188:227–257, 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batens, D., K. De Clercq, and N. Kurtonina, Embedding and Interpolation for Some Paralogics. The Propositional Case. Reports on Mathematical Logic 33:29–44, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batens, D., and J. Meheus, A Tableau Method for Inconsistency-Adaptive Logics. In R. Dyckhoff, (ed.), Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Berlin, 2000, pp. 127–142.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Batens, D., and J. Meheus, Shortcuts and Dynamic Marking in the Tableau Method for Adaptive Logics. Studia Logica 69:221–248, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boolos, G., Don’t Eliminate Cut. Journal of Philosophical Logic 13(4):373–378, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caleiro, C., J. Marcos, and M. Volpe, Bivalent semantics, generalized compositionality and analytic classic-like tableaux for finite-valued logics. Theoretical Computer Science 603:84–110, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carnielli, W.A., and M.E. Coniglio, Logics of Formal Inconsistency. In F. Guenthner, and D.M. Gabbay, (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 14, Springer, Berlin, 2013, pp. 1–93.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carnielli, W.A., and J. Marcos, A taxonomy of \(\mathbf{C}\)-systems. In I.M.L. D’Ottaviano, W.A. Carnielli, and M.E. Coniglio, (eds.), Paraconsistency—The Logical Way to the Inconsistent, Marcel Dekker, 2000, pp. 1–94.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chlebowski, S.Z., Canonical and Dual Erotetic Calculi for First-Order Logic. Ph.D. Thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, 2018. (Unpublished manuscript, previously referred to as “The Method of Socratic Proofs for Classical Logic and Some Non-Classical Logics”).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chlebowski, S.Z., A. Gajda, and M. Urbański, Abductive Question–Answer System for the Minimal Logic of Formal Inconsistency mbC. (Unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chlebowski, S.Z., and D. Leszczyńska-Jasion, Dual Erotetic Calculi and the Minimal LFI. Studia Logica 103(6):1245–1278, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coniglio, M.E., and T.G. Rodrigues, Some investigations on \({\sf mbC}\) and \({\sf mCi}\). In C.A. Mortari, (ed.), Tópicos de lógicas não clássicas, NEL/UFSC, 2014, pp. 11–70.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Agostino, M., Are tableaux an improvement on truth-tables? Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1(3):235–252, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D’Agostino, M., and M. Mondadori, The Taming of the Cut. Classical Refutations with Analytic Cut. Journal of Logic and Computation 4(3):285–319, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fitting, M., Proof Methods for Modal and Intuitionistic Logics. Springer, Netherlands, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fitting, M., First-order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving. Springer, Berlin, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Golińska-Pilarek, J., T. Huuskonen, and E. Muñoz-Velasco, Relational dual tableau decision procedures and their applications to modal and intuitionistic logics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 165(2):409–427, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Golińska-Pilarek, J., and E. Orłowska. Tableaux and dual tableaux: transformation of proofs. Studia Logica 85:283–302, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grzelak, A., and D. Leszczyńska-Jasion, Automatic proof generation in an axiomatic system for \({\sf CPL}\) by means of the method of Socratic proofs. Logic Journal of the IGPL 26(1):109–148, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hählne, R., Tableaux and Related Methods. In A. Robinson, and A. Voronkov, (eds.), Handbook of Automated Reasoning, Chapter 3, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 2001, pp. 101–175.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ignaszak, M., Dual erotetic version of system KE. Master’s Thesis, Department of Logic and Cognitive Science, Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University, 2017.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Konikowska, B., Rasiowa–Sikorski deduction system: a handy tool for Computer Science logic. In Proceedings WADT98, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 1589, Springer, Berlin, 1999, pp. 183–197.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Konikowska, B., Rasiowa–Sikorski deduction systems in computer science applications. Theoretical Computer Science 286(2):323–366, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leszczyńska-Jasion, D., The Method of Socratic Proofs for Normal Modal Propositional Logics. Adam Mickiewicz University Press, Poznań, 2007.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leszczyńska-Jasion, D., The Method of Socratic Proofs for Modal Propositional Logics: K5, S4.2, S4.3, S4M, S4F, S4R and G. Studia Logica 89(3):371–405, 2008.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neto, A.G.S.S., and M. Finger, Effective prover for minimal inconsistency logic. In M. Bramer, (ed.), IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Springer, Berlin, 2006, pp. 465–474.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Orłowska, E., and J. Golińska-Pilarek, Dual Tableaux: Foundations, Methodology, Case Studies, volume 33 of Trends in Logic. Springer, Dordrecht, 2011.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pudlák, P., The Lengths of Proofs. In S.R. Buss, (ed.), Handbook of Proof Theory, chapter VIII, Elsevier, 1998, pp. 547–637.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rasiowa, H., and R. Sikorski, On the Gentzen theorem. Fundamenta Mathematicae 48:57–69, 1960.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rasiowa, H., and R. Sikorski, The Mathematics of Metamathematics. Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1963.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smullyan, R.M., First-Order Logic. Springer, Berlin, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smullyan, R.M., A Beginner’s Guide to Mathematical Logic. Dover Books on Mathematics. Dover Publications, 2014.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Urbański, M., Tabele syntetyczne a logika pytań. Wydawnictwo UMCS, Lublin, 2002.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wiśniewski, A., Socratic Proofs. Journal of Philosophical Logic 33(3):299–326, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wiśniewski, A., Questions, Inferences, and Scenarios. College Publications, London, 2013.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wiśniewski, A., and V. Shangin, Socratic proofs for quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35(2):147–178, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wiśniewski, A., G. Vanackere, and D. Leszczyńska, Socratic Proofs and Paraconsistency: A Case Study. Studia Logica 80(2-3):433–468, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and Cognitive Science, Institute of PsychologyAdam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations