Studia Logica

, Volume 97, Issue 1, pp 161–182

# A Method of Generating Modal Logics Defining Jaśkowski’s Discussive Logic D2

• Marek Nasieniewski
• Andrzej Pietruszczak
Article

## Abstract

Jaśkowski’s discussive logic D2 was formulated with the help of the modal logic S5 as follows (see [7, 8]): $${A \in {D_{2}}}$$ iff $${\ulcorner\diamond{{A}^{\bullet}}\urcorner \in {\rm S}5}$$, where (–) is a translation of discussive formulae from Ford into the modal language. We say that a modal logic L defines D2 iff $${{\rm D}_{2} = \{A \in {\rm For^{\rm d}} : \ulcorner\diamond{{A}^{\bullet}}\urcorner \in {\it L}\}}$$. In [14] and [10] were respectively presented the weakest normal and the weakest regular logic which (†): have the same theses beginning with ‘$${\diamond}$$’ as S5. Of course, all logics fulfilling the above condition, define D2. In [10] it was prowed that in the cases of logics closed under congruence the following holds: defining D2 is equivalent to having the property (†). In this paper we show that this equivalence holds also for all modal logics which are closed under replacement of tautological equivalents (rte-logics).

We give a general method which, for any class of modal logics determined by a set of joint axioms and rules, generates in the given class the weakest logic having the property (†). Thus, for the class of all modal logics we obtain the weakest modal logic which owns this property. On the other hand, applying the method to various classes of modal logics: rte-logics, congruential, monotonic, regular and normal, we obtain the weakest in a given class logic defining D2.

## Keywords

Jaśkowski’s discussive logic D2 generating modal logics defining D2

## References

1. 1.
Bull, R. A., and K. Segerberg, ‘Basic modal logic’, in M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. II, D. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1984, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
2. 2.
Błaszczuk J.J., Dziobiak W.: ‘Remarks on Perzanowski’s modal system’. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 4, 57–64 (1975)Google Scholar
3. 3.
Błaszczuk, J. J., and W. Dziobiak, ‘Modal logics connected with systems S4n of Sobociński’, Studia Logica 36: 151–175, 1977.
4. 4.
Chellas, B. F., Modal Logic. An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.Google Scholar
5. 5.
Chellas, B. F., and K. Segerberg, ‘Modal logics in the vicinity of S1’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37: 1–24, 1996.
6. 6.
Furmanowski, T., ‘Remarks on discussive propositional calculus’, Studia Logica 34: 39–43, 1975.
7. 7.
Jaśkowski, S., ‘Rachunek zdań dla systemów dedukcyjnych sprzecznych’, Studia Societatis Scientiarum Torunensis, Sect. A, I(5): 57–77, 1948. The first English version: ‘Propositional calculus for contradictory deductive systems’, Studia Logica 24: 143–157, 1969. The second English version: ‘A propositional calculus for inconsistent deductive systems’, Logic and Logical Philosophy 7: 35–56, 1999.Google Scholar
8. 8.
Jaśkowski, S., ‘O koniunkcji dyskusyjnej w rachunku zdań dla systemów dedukcyjnych sprzecznych’, Studia Societatis Scientiarum Torunensis, Sect. A, I(8): 171–172, 1949. The English version: ‘On the discussive conjunction in the propositional calculus for inconsistent deductive systems’, Logic and Logical Philosophy 7: 57–59, 1999.Google Scholar
9. 9.
Nasieniewski, M., ‘A comparison of two approaches to parainconsistency: Flemish and Polish’, Logic and Logical Philosophy 9: 47–74, 2002.Google Scholar
10. 10.
Nasieniewski, M., and A. Pietruszczak, ‘The weakest regular modal logic defining Jaśkowski’s logic D2’, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 37(3/4): 197–210, 2008.Google Scholar
11. 11.
Nasieniewski, M., and A. Pietruszczak, ‘New axiomatizations of the weakest regular modal logic defining Jaśkowski’s logic D2’, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 38(1/2): 45–50, 2009.Google Scholar
12. 12.
Nasieniewski, M., and A. Pietruszczak, ‘Semantics for regular logics connected with Jaśkowski’s discussive logic D2’, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 38(3/4): 173–187, 2009.Google Scholar
13. 13.
Nasieniewski, M., and A. Pietruszczak, ‘On modal logics defining Jaśkowski’s D2-consequence’. Accepted for the publication in the collection of papers presented during the Fourth World Congress of Paraconsistency, Melbourne, July 13–18, 2008.Google Scholar
14. 14.
Perzanowski J.: ‘On M-fragments and L-fragments of normal modal propositional logics’. Reports on Mathematical Logic 5, 63–72 (1975)Google Scholar
15. 15.
Segerberg, K., An Essay in Classical Modal Logic, vol. I and vol. II, Uppsala 1971.Google Scholar