Strong Paraconsistency and the Basic Constructive Logic for an Even Weaker Sense of Consistency
- 60 Downloads
In a standard sense, consistency and paraconsistency are understood as the absence of any contradiction and as the absence of the ECQ (‘E contradictione quodlibet’) rule, respectively. The concepts of weak consistency (in two different senses) as well as that of F-consistency have been defined by the authors. The aim of this paper is (a) to define alternative (to the standard one) concepts of paraconsistency in respect of the aforementioned notions of weak consistency and F-consistency; (b) to define the concept of strong paraconsistency; (c) to build up a series of strongly paraconsistent logics; (d) to define the basic constructive logic adequate to a rather weak sense of consistency. All logics treated in this paper are strongly paraconsistent. All of them are sound and complete in respect a modification of Routley and Meyer’s ternary relational semantics for relevant logics (no logic in this paper is relevant).
KeywordsConsistency Paraconsistent logics Constructive negation Substructural logics Ternary relational semantics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Anderson, A. R., & Belnap, N. D. Jr. (1975). Entailment. The logic of relevance and necessity, Vol. I. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Méndez J.M., Robles G., Salto F. (2007) The basic constructive logic for negation-consistency defined with a propositional falsity constant. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 36(1–2): 45–58Google Scholar
- Priest, G., & Tanaka, K. (2004). Paraconsistent logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The standford encyclopedia of philosophy/. Winter 2004 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2004/entries/logic-paraconsistent/.
- Restall G. (1999) Negation in relevant logics. In: Gabbay D., Wansing H. (eds) What is negation?. Kluwer, Boston, pp 53–76Google Scholar
- Robles, G., & Méndez, J. M. (2005a). On defining constructive negation in logics of entailment. In Paper presented at the First World Congress on Universal Logic, Montreux, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Robles G., Méndez J.M. (2005b) Relational ternary semantics for a logic equivalent to Involutive Monoidal t-norm based logic IMTL. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 34(2): 101–116Google Scholar
- Robles, G., Méndez, J. M., & Salto, F. (2007). Relevance logics, paradoxes of consistency and the K rule. Logique et Analyse, 198, 129–145. (An abstract of this paper was read at the Logic Colloquium 2006, Nijmegen, Holland, 27 July–2 August 2006).Google Scholar
- Routley, R. et al. (1982). Relevant logics and their rivals, Vol. 1. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Co.Google Scholar
- Slaney, J. (1995). MaGIC, matrix generator for implication connectives: Version 2.1, notes and guide. Canberra: Australian National University. http://users.rsise.anu.edu.au/~jks.