Synthese

, Volume 167, Issue 2, pp 271–315 | Cite as

The enduring scandal of deduction

Is propositional logic really uninformative?
Article

Abstract

Deductive inference is usually regarded as being “tautological” or “analytical”: the information conveyed by the conclusion is contained in the information conveyed by the premises. This idea, however, clashes with the undecidability of first-order logic and with the (likely) intractability of Boolean logic. In this article, we address the problem both from the semantic and the proof-theoretical point of view. We propose a hierarchy of propositional logics that are all tractable (i.e. decidable in polynomial time), although by means of growing computational resources, and converge towards classical propositional logic. The underlying claim is that this hierarchy can be used to represent increasing levels of “depth” or “informativeness” of Boolean reasoning. Special attention is paid to the most basic logic in this hierarchy, the pure “intelim logic”, which satisfies all the requirements of a natural deduction system (allowing both introduction and elimination rules for each logical operator) while admitting of a feasible (quadratic) decision procedure. We argue that this logic is “analytic” in a particularly strict sense, in that it rules out any use of “virtual information”, which is chiefly responsible for the combinatorial explosion of standard classical systems. As a result, analyticity and tractability are reconciled and growing degrees of computational complexity are associated with the depth at which the use of virtual information is allowed.

Keywords

Boolean logic Tractability Semantic information Analytical reasoning Natural deduction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bar-Hillel, Y. (eds) (1964) Language and information: Selected essays on their theory and application. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassGoogle Scholar
  2. Belnap, N. D., Jr. (1976). How a computer should think. In G. Ryle (Ed.), Contemporary aspects of philosophy (pp. 30–55). Oriel Press.Google Scholar
  3. Belnap N.D. Jr. (1977) A useful four-valued logic. In: Dunn J.M., Epstein G. (eds) Modern uses of multiple-valued logics. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 8–37Google Scholar
  4. Bendall K. (1978) Natural deduction, separation, and the meaning of the logical operators. Journal of Philosophical Logic 7: 245–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bremer M., Cohnitz D. (2004) Information and information flow. An introduction. Frankfurt and Lancaster, Ontos VerlagGoogle Scholar
  6. Cadoli, M., & Schaerf, M. (1992). Tractable reasoning via approximation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Tractable Reasoning, pp. 12–15.Google Scholar
  7. Carnap R., Bar-Hillel Y. (1953) An outline of a theory of semantic information. In: Bar-Hillel Y. (eds) Language and information: Selected essays on their theory and application. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, pp 221–274Google Scholar
  8. Cellucci C. (1988) Efficient natural deduction. In: Cellucci C., Sambin G. (eds) Temi e prospettive della logica e della filosofia della scienza contemporanee (Vol I). CLUEB, Bologna, pp 29–57Google Scholar
  9. Cellucci C. (1995) On Quine’s approach to natural deduction. In: Leonardi P., Santambrogio M. (eds) On Quine: New essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 314–335Google Scholar
  10. Cook, S. A. (1971). The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In STOC’71: Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (pp. 151–158). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  11. Corcoran J. (1998) Information-theoretic logic. In: Martfnez L.V.-F.C., Rivas U. (eds) Truth in perspective. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Limited, pp 113–135Google Scholar
  12. Crawford, J. M., & Etherington, D. W. (1998). A non-deterministic semantics for tractable inference. In AAAI/IAAI, pp. 286–291.Google Scholar
  13. D’Agostino, M. (1999). Tableaux methods for classical propositional logic. In M. D’Agostino, D. Gabbay, R. Hähnle, & J. Posegga (Eds.), Handbook of tableaux methods (pp. 45–123). Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. D’Agostino, M. (2005). Classical natural deduction. In S. N. Artëmov, H. Barringer, A. S. d’Avila Garcez, L. C. Lamb, & J. Woods (Eds.), We will show them! (1) (pp. 429–468). College Publications.Google Scholar
  15. D’Agostino M., Mondadori M. (1994) The taming of the cut. Journal of Logic and Computation 4: 285–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Agostino, M., & Mondadori, M. (1999). La logica è davvero analitica? Bollettino Filosofico, Università della Calabria, 15.Google Scholar
  17. Dalal, M. (1996). Anytime families of tractable propositional reasoners. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on AI and Mathematics (AI/MATH-96), pp. 42–45.Google Scholar
  18. Dalal M. (1998) Anytime families of tractable propositional reasoners. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 22: 297–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dretske, F. I. (1981). Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in 1999. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Dummett M. (1978) Truth and other Enigmas. Duckworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Dummett M. (1991) The logical basis of metaphysics. Duckworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Finger, M. (2004a). Polynomial approximations of full propositional logic via limited bivalence. In 9th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2004), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 3229, pp. 526–538). Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Finger, M. (2004b). Towards polynomial approximations of full propositional logic. In A. L. Bazzan & S. Labidi (Eds.), XVII Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (SBIA 2004), Lecture notes in artificial intel Lingence (Vol. 3171, pp. 11–20). Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Finger M., Gabbay D. (2006) Cut and pay. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15(3): 195–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finger M., Wasserman R. (2004) Approximate and limited reasoning: Semantics, proof theory, expressivity and control. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(2): 179–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Floridi L. (2004) Outline of a theory of strongly semantic information. Minds and Machines 14(2): 197–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Floridi L. (2005) Is information meaningful data?. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70(2): 351–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gentzen, G. (1935). Unstersuchungen über das logische Schliessen. Math Zeitschrift, 39, 176–210. English translation in Szabo, M. (Ed.). (1969). The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  29. Hempel, C. (1945). Geometry and empirical science. American Mathematical Monthly, 52.Google Scholar
  30. Hintikka J. (1973) Logic, language games and information. Kantian themes in the philosophy of logic. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Leblanc H. (1966) Two shortcomings of natural deduction. Journal of Philosophy LXIII: 29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Popper, K. (1934). Logik Der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie Der Modernen Naturwissenschaft. Wien: J. Springer. Eng. tr. The logic of scientific discovery (London: Hutchinson, 1959).Google Scholar
  33. Sequoiah-Grayson S. (2008) The scandal of deduction. Hintikka on the information yield of deductive inferences. The Journal of Philosophical Logic 37(1): 67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Foreword by R. E. Blahut and B. Hajek.Google Scholar
  35. Smullyan R.M. (1965) Analytic natural deduction. Journal of Symbolic Logic 30: 123–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Szabo, M. (eds) (1969) The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  37. Tennant, N. (1990). Natural logic. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Weir A. (1986) Classical harmony. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27(4): 459–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze UmaneUniversità di FerraraFerraraItaly
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of HertfordshireHatfieldUK
  3. 3.Faculty of Philosophy and OUCLUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations