Skip to main content

First-order Logics of Evidence and Truth with Constant and Variable Domains

Abstract

The main aim of this paper is to introduce first-order versions of logics of evidence and truth, together with corresponding sound and complete Kripke semantics with variable and constant domains. According to the intuitive interpretation proposed here, these logics intend to represent possibly inconsistent and incomplete information bases over time. The paper also discusses the connections between Belnap-Dunn’s and da Costa’s approaches to paraconsistency, and argues that the logics of evidence and truth combine them in a very natural way.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. For more precise characterizations of \(LFI\)s, \(LFU\)s, and LFIUs, see [18], Definitions 4.3, 4.5, and 4.7.

  2. For a more detailed account of the notion of evidence in \(LET\)s, see [46, Sects. 1 and 2].

  3. The relational semantics for \(FDE\) proposed by Dunn [26] in terms of subsets of \(\{ 0 ,1 \}\) is essentially the same idea, though in different clothing.

  4. This point is clearer with the valuation semantics for \(FDE\) presented in [47, Sect. 2.1], which makes the non-deterministic character of the negation of \(FDE\) explicit.

  5. For a discussion as well as a defense of false information as information see [28, 29, 32, 34].

  6. This terminology has been borrowed from Fitting [33].

  7. A definition of evidence based on the notion of information as meaningful data supplemented by possibly non-factive justifications is proposed and discussed in [46, Sect. 2.3], where these ideas are worked out in more detail.

  8. This is illustrated in Remark 4.8 below. Note that this idea applies to any context of reasoning that receives new information as time passes, not only to databases in the strict sense of an information base accessed by a computer system.

  9. A formula is an alphabetic variant of another if they only differ in (some of) their bound variables. See [31, pp. 126-7] for details.

  10. The reader may wonder at this point what would it take to review a certain piece of information (e.g., when it leads to an inconsistency), that is, how to ‘delete’ something that has already been inserted into the database. The suitable tools for dealing with this problem are provided by belief revision, which can take one or another \(LET\) as the underlying logic. Belief revision based on \(LET\)s will be investigated elsewhere.

  11. The other quantifier rules of \(Q_{v}LET_{F}^-\) would also have to be modified if we opted for an inclusive free version of \(Q_{v}LET_{F}^-\).

  12. It is worth mentioning that the failure to recognize this point has been the source of the error in Thomason’s proof of the soundness of first-order intuitionistic logic in [48]. According to Posy [44], when this omission was pointed out to him, Thomason claimed that a free logic is indeed more appropriate for intuitionism than the logic he originally proposed in [48]. The strategy adopted here to avoid the need for free quantifiers, viz., that of requiring every individual constant to denote at every stage, is due to van Dalen [24, Sect. 5.3].

  13. Item (2) above is an immediate consequence of rules \(\lnot \! \rightarrow I\) and \(\lnot \! \rightarrow E\) and the properties of regular Henkin sets.

  14. Note that there is no need for Kripke models for a constant domain first-order version of \(LET_{F}^-\), since in this case all semantic clauses are local.

  15. On the distinction between pure and applied logics, see e.g. [7, pp. 157ff.].

References

  1. Almukdad, A., Nelson, D.: Constructible falsity and inexact predicates. J. Symb. Log. 49(1), 231–233 (1984)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, A.R.: Completeness theorems for the systems E of entailment and EQ of entailment with quantification. Math. Log. Q. 6, 201–216 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, A.R., Belnap, N.D.: Tautological entailments. Philos. Stud. 13, 9–24 (1962)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, A.R., Belnap, N.D.: First degree entailments. Math. Ann. 149, 302–319 (1963)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Antunes, H., Carnielli, W., Kapsner, A., Rodrigues, A.: Kripke-style models for logics of evidence and truth. Axioms 9(3), 100 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Antunes, H., Rodrigues, A., Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M.E.: Valuation semantics for first-order logics of evidence and truth. J. Philos. Log. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-022-09662-8

  7. Barrio, E., Da Ré, B.: Paraconsistency and its philosophical interpretations. Australas. J. Log. 15, 151–170 (2018)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Belnap, N.D.: How a computer should think. In G. Ryle, editor, Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy. Oriel Press, 1977a. Reprinted in New Essays on Belnap-Dunn Logic, Springer, pp 35-55 (2019)

  9. Belnap, N.D.: A useful four-valued logic. In G. Epstein and J.M. Dunn, editors, Modern uses of multiple valued logics. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1977b. Reprinted in [42]

  10. Carnielli, W., Antunes, H.: An objectual semantics for first-order LFI1 with an application to free logics. In: Haeusler, E.H., Pereira, L.C., Petrucio Viana, J. (eds.) A Question is More Illuminating than an Answer – A Festschrift for Paulo A. S. Veloso. College Publications, London (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M.E. : Paraconsistent Logic: Consistency, Contradiction and Negation, vol 40 of Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science series. Springer, (2016)

  12. Carnielli, W., Marcos, J.: A taxonomy of C-systems. In: Carnielli, Coniglio, D’Ottaviano (eds.) Paraconsistency: The Logical Way to the Inconsistent. Marcel Dekker, New York (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Carnielli, W., Rodrigues, A.: Towards a philosophical understanding of the logics of formal inconsistency. Manuscrito 38, 155–184 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carnielli, W., Rodrigues, A.: On the philosophy and mathematics of the logics of formal inconsistency. In: Beziau, J.-Y. et al., (eds.) New Directions in Paraconsistent Logic – Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics 152, pp 57–88. Springer India, (2015b)

  15. Carnielli, W., Rodrigues, A.: An epistemic approach to paraconsistency: a logic of evidence and truth. Synthese 196, 3789–3813 (2017)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M.E., Marcos, J.: Logics of formal inconsistency. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 14, pp. 1–93. Springer-Verlag, Amsterdam (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M.E., Podiacki, R., Rodrigues, T.: On the way to a wider model theory: completeness theorems for first-order logics of formal inconsistency. The Review Of Symbolic Logic 7(3), 548–578 (2014)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M.E., Rodrigues, A.: Recovery operators, paraconsistency and duality. Logic Journal of the IGPL 28, 624–656 (2019)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. da Costa, N.: Sistemas Formais Inconsistentes, p. 1963. Editora da UFPR, Curitiba (1993)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. da Costa, N.: On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, XV, number 4(4), 497–510 (1974)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. da Costa, N., Alves, E.H.: A semantical analysis of the calculi Cn. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 18, 621–630 (1977)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. da Costa, N., Carnielli, W.: On paraconsistent deontic logic. Philosophia 16, 293–305 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. da Costa, N., Krause, D., Bueno, O.: Paraconsistent logics and paraconsistency. In: Jacquette, D. et al., (eds.) Philosophy of Logic – Handbook of the Philosophy of Science Vol. 5, pp. 791–911. Elsevier, (2007)

  24. van Dalen, D.: Logic and Structure. Springer, 4th edition, (2008)

  25. D’Ottaviano, I., da Costa, N.: Sur un problème de Jáskowski. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie de Sciences de Paris 270, 1349–1353 (1970)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Dunn, J.M.: Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailments and ‘coupled trees’. Philosophical Studies, 29, 149–168 (1976). Reprinted in [42]

  27. Dunn, J.M.: The concept of information and the development of modern logic. In: Stelzner, W., Stöckler, M. (eds.) Zwischen traditioneller und moderner Logik: Nichtklassische Ansatze, pp. 423–447. Mentis-Verlag, Paderborn (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dunn, J.M.: Information in computer science. In: Adriaans, P., van Benthem, J. (eds.) Philosophy of Information. Volume 8 of Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, pp. 581–608. Elsevier, (2008)

  29. Dunn, J.M.: A guide to the Floridi keys (Review of Floridi’s The Philosophy of Information). Metascience 22, 93–98 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dunn, J.M.: Two, three, four, infinity: The path to the four-valued logic and beyond. In: Omori Wansing, (eds.) New Essays on Belnap-Dunn Logic, pp. 77–97. Springer (2019)

  31. Enderton, H.B.: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Elsevier, 2nd edition, (2001)

  32. Fetzer, J.: Information: Does it have to be true? Mind. Mach. 14, 223–229 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fitting, M.: Paraconsistent logic, evidence, and justification. Stud. Logica. 105(6), 1149–1166 (2016)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Floridi, L.: The Philosophy of Information. Oxford University Press, (2011)

  35. Jáskowski, S.: Propositional calculus for contraditory deductive systems. Stud. Logica. 24(143–157), 1948 (1969)

  36. Loparic, A.: A semantical study of some propositional calculi. The Journal of Non-Classical Logic 3(1), 73–95 (1986)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Loparic, A., Alves, E.: The semantics of the systems \(Cn\) of da Costa. In: Arruda, A., da Costa, N., Sette, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third Brazilian Conference on Mathematical Logic, pp. 161–172. São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Lógica, (1980)

  38. Loparic, A., da Costa, N.: Paraconsistency, paracompleteness and valuations. Logique et Anal. (N.S.) 106, 119–131 (1984)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. López-Escobar, E.G.K.: Refutability and elementary number theory. Indag. Math. 34, 362–374 (1972)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Marcos, J.: Logics of Formal Inconsistency. PhD thesis, University of Campinas, (2005a)

  41. Marcos, J.: Nearly every normal modal logic is paranormal. Logique et Anal. (N.S.) 48, 279–300 (2005)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Omori, H., Wansing, H.: 40 years of FDE: An introductory overview. Stud. Logica. 105, 1021–1049 (2017)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Omori, H., Wansing, H. (eds.) New Essays on Belnap-Dunn Logic. Springer (2019)

  44. Posy, C.J.: A free IPC is a natural logic: Strong completeness for some intuitionistic free logics. Topoi 1, 30–43 (1982)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Priest, G.: Paraconsistent logic. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic (Vol. 6), pp. 287–393. Springer, Dordrecht (2002)

  46. Rodrigues, A., Carnielli, W.: On Barrio, Lo Guercio, and Szmuc on logics of evidence and truth. Logic and Logical Philosophy, forthcoming

  47. Rodrigues, A., Bueno-Soler, J., Carnielli, W.: Measuring evidence: a probabilistic approach to an extension of Belnap-Dunn Logic. Synthese 198, 5451–5480 (2020)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Thomason, R.H.: On the strong semantical completeness of the intuitionistic predicate calculus. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 33, 1–7 (1968)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Troelstra, A. S., van Dalen, D.: Constructivism in Mathematics, vol. I. North Holland, (1988)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrique Antunes.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The research of the first author is supported by the grants 311911/2018-8, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazil), and APQ-02093-21, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG, Brazil). We would like to thank Alexandre Barros, Carlos Barth, Walter Carnielli, and Marcelo Coniglio for valuable discussions that helped to shape some of the ideas presented in this text.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodrigues, A., Antunes, H. First-order Logics of Evidence and Truth with Constant and Variable Domains. Log. Univers. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-022-00306-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-022-00306-8

Keywords

  • Logics of evidence and truth
  • Paraconsistency
  • Kripke models
  • Variable domains

Mathematics Subject Classification

  • Primary 03B53
  • Secondary 03A05