Advertisement

From Paraconsistent Logic to Dialetheic Logic

  • Hitoshi Omori
Chapter
Part of the Trends in Logic book series (TREN, volume 45)

Abstract

The only condition for a logic to be paraconsistent is to invalidate the so-called explosion. However, the understanding of the only connective involved in the explosion, namely negation, is not shared among paraconsistentists. By returning to the modern origin of paraconsistent logic, this paper proposes an account of negation, and explores some of its implications. These will be followed by a consideration on underlying logics for dialetheic theories, especially those following the suggestion of Laura Goodship. More specifically, I will introduce a special kind of paraconsistent logic, called dialetheic logic, and present a new system of paraconsistent logic, which is dialetheic, by expanding the Logic of Paradox of Graham Priest. The new logic is obtained by combining connectives from different traditions of paraconsistency, and has some distinctive features such as its propositional fragment being Post complete. The logic is presented in a Hilbert-style calculus, and the soundness and completeness results are established.

Keywords

Classical Logic Unary Operation Classical Negation Falsity Condition Paraconsistent Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Arieli, O., & Avron, A. (1998). The value of the four values. Artificial Intelligence, 102, 97–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avron, A. (1999). On the expressive power of three-valued and four-valued languages. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9, 977–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batens, D. (1980). Paraconsistent extensional propositional logics. Logique et Analyse, 90–91, 195–234.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batens, D., & De Clercq, K. (2004). A rich paraconsistent extension of full positive logic. Logique et Analyse, 185–188, 227–257.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beall, J. C. (2009). Spandrels of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cantwell, J. (2008). The logic of conditional negation. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 49, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M., & Marcos, J. (2007). Logics of formal inconsistency. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosphical logic (Vol. 14, pp. 1–93). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carnielli, W. & Marcos, J. (2002). A Taxonomy of C-systems. In W. A. Carnielli, M. E. Coniglio, & I. M. L. d’Ottaviano, (Eds.), Paraconsistency: the logical way to the inconsistent, (pp. 1–94). New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carnielli, W., Marcos, J., & de Amo, S. (2000). Formal inconsistency and evolutionary databases. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 8, 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ciuciura, J. (2008). Frontiers of the discursive logic. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 37(2), 81–92.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    da Costa, & Newton, C. A. (1974). On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15, 497–510.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Michael, & Omori, H. (2015). Classical negation and expansions of BD. Studia Logica, 103(4), 825–851.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    d’Ottaviano, I. M. L. (1985).The completeness and compactness of a three-valued first-order logic. Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas, 19:77–94,Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    d’Ottaviano, I. M. L., Newton C. A. & da Costa. (1970). Sur un problème de jaśkowski. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie de Sciences de Paris (A-B), 270:1349–1353Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goodship, L. (1996). On dialethism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horn, L. R., & Wansing, H. (2015). Negation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/negation/ (Spring 2015 edition).
  17. 17.
    Jaśkowski, S. (1999). A propositional calculus for inconsistent deductive systems. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 7:35–56 (A new translation based on [?])Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jaśkowski, S. (1999). On the discussive conjunction in the propositional calculus for inconsistent deductive systems. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 7, 57–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamide, N., & Wansing, H. (2012). Proof theory of nelson’s paraconsistent logic: a uniform perspective. Theoretical Computer Science, 415, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lenzen, W. (1996). Necessary conditions for negation operators. In Wansing, H. (Ed.), Negation: a notion in focus, Perspective in Analytical Philosophy (pp. 37–58). Walter de Gruyter,Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marcos, J. (2005). On negation: pure local rules. Journal of Applied Logic, 3, 185–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCall, S. (2012). A history of connexivity. In D. M. Gabbay, F. Pelletier, & J. Woods (Eds.), Logic: a history of its central concepts, Handbook of the history of logic, (Vol. 11, pp. 415–449). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muskens, R. (1999). On partial and paraconsistent logics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 40(3), 352–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Olkhovikov, G. (2001). On a new three-valued paraconsistent logic (in Russian). In Logic of Law and Tolerance (pp. 96–113). Yekaterinburg: Ural State University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Omori, Hitoshi. (2015). Remarks on naive set theory based on LP. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(2), 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Omori, H., & Sano, K. (2014). da Costa meets Belnap and Nelson. In R. Ciuni, H. Wansing, & C. Willkommen (Eds.), Recent Trends in Philosophical Logic (pp. 145–166). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Omori, H., & Sano, K. (2015). Generalizing Functional Completeness in Belnap-Dunn Logic. Studia Logica, 103(5), 883–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Omori, H., & Waragai, T. (2011). Some Observations on the Systems LFI1 and LFI1 \(^\ast \). Proceedings of Twenty-Second International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA2011) (pp. 320–324)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Omori, H. & Waragai, T. (2014). On the propagation of consistency in some systems of paraconsistent logic. In E. Weber, D. Wouters, & J. Meheus, (Eds.), Logic, reasoning and rationality, (pp. 153–178). Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Priest, G. (2002). Beyond the limits of thought (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Priest, G. (2006). Doubt truth to be a liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Priest, G. (2006). Contradiction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Priest, G. (2014). One. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Priest, G., & Routley, R. (1989). Systems of paraconsistent logic. In G. Priest, R. Routley, & J. Norman (Eds.), Paraconsistent logic: essays on the inconsistent (pp. 151–186). Munich: PhilosophiaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pynko, A. P. (1999). Functional completeness and axiomatizability within Belnap’s four-valued logic and its expansions. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 9(1), 61–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Restall, G. (1992). A note on naive set theory in LP. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 33, 422–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ruet, P. (1996). Complete set of connectives and complete sequent calculus for Belnap’s logic. Technical report, Ecole Normale Superieure, Logic Colloquium 96, Document LIENS-96-28.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Słupecki, J. (1972). A criterion of fullness of many-valued systems of propositional logic. Studia Logica, 30, 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tokarz, M. (1973). Connections between some notions of completeness of structural propositional calculi. Studia Logica, 32(1), 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wansing, H. (2001). Negation. In L. Goble (Ed.), The blackwell guide to philosophical logic (pp. 415–436). Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wansing, H. (2005). Connexive modal logic. In R. Schmidt, I. Pratt-Hartmann, M. Reynolds & H. Wansing, (Eds.), Advances in modal logic (Vol. 5, pp. 367–383). London: King’s College PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wansing, H. (2014). Connexive logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/logic-connexive/ (Fall 2014 edition)
  43. 43.
    Weber, Z. (2010). Transfinite numbers in paraconsistent set theory. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 3(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weber, Z. (2012). Transfinite cardinals in paraconsistent set theory. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(2), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations