Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Logical Discrimination

  • Conference paper
Logica Universalis

  • 631 Accesses

Abstract

We discuss conditions under which the following ‘truism’ does indeed express a truth: the weaker a logic is in terms of what it proves, the stronger it is as a tool for registering distinctions amongst the formulas in its language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. R. Anderson and N. D. Belnap, Entailment: the Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. I, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1975.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Jean-Yves Béziau, ‘Classical Negation Can Be Expressed by One of its Halves’s, Logic Journal of the IGPL 7 (1999), 145–151.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. R. J. Bignall and M. Spinks, ‘Multiple-Valued Logics for Theorem-Proving in First Order Logic with Equality’, Proceedings of the 28th IEEE Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logics 1998, pp. 102–107.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wim J. Blok and Don L. Pigozzi, ‘Algebraizable Logics’, Memoirs of the American Math. Soc. 77 (1989), #396.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Stephen Blamey, ‘Partial Logic’, pp. 261–353 in D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Second Edition, Vol. 5, Kluwer, Dordrecht 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Stanley Burris, ‘Discriminator Varieties and Symbolic Computation’, Journal of Symbolic Computation 13 (1992), 175–207.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. J. P. Cleave, A Study of Logics, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1991.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. J. Czelakowski, ‘Equivalential Logics (I)’, Studia Logica 40 (1981), 227–236.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. J. Czelakowski, Protoalgebraic Logics, Kluwer, Dordrecht 2001.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. J. M. Font, R. Jansana and D. Pigozzi, ‘A Survey of Abstract Algebraic Logic’, Studia Logica 74 (2003), 13–97.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. D. M. Gabbay, Semantical Investigations in Heyting’s Intuitionistic Logic, Reidel, Dordrecht 1981.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. J. Roger Hindley, ‘BCK and BCI Logics, Condensed Detachment and the 2-Property’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 34 (1993), 231–250.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Lloyd Humberstone, ‘Unique Characterization of Connectives’ (Abstract) Journal of Symbolic Logic 49 (1984), 1426–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lloyd Humberstone, ‘A More Discriminating Approach to Modal Logic’ (Abstract) Journal of Symbolic Logic 51 (1986), 503–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lloyd Humberstone, Review of Cleave [7] and Koslow [22], Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73 (1995), 475–481.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lloyd Humberstone, ‘Classes of Valuations Closed Under Operations Galois-Dual to Boolean Sentence Connectives’, Publications of the Research Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University 32 (1996), 9–84.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Lloyd Humberstone, ‘Contra-Classical Logics’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (2000), 437–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lloyd Humberstone, ‘Béziau’s Translation Paradox’, Theoria 71 (2005), 138–181.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Lloyd Humberstone, ‘Identical Twins, Deduction Theorems, and Pattern Functions: Exploring the Implicative BCSK Fragment of S5’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (2006), 435–487.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Lloyd Humberstone, ‘Variations on a Theme of Curry’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 47 (2006), 101–131.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. J. Kabziński, ‘BCI-Algebras From the Point of View of Logic’, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 12 (1983), 126–129.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Arnold Koslow, A Structuralist Theory of Logics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. R. Lucas, A Treatise on Time and Space, Methuen, London 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jan Łukasiewicz, ‘On the Intuitionistic Theory of Deduction’, pp. 325–340 in L. Borkowski (ed., Jan Łukasiewicz: Selected Works, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1970. (Article originally published 1952.)

    Google Scholar 

  25. E. P. Martin and R. K. Meyer, ‘Solution to the P — W Problem’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 47 (1982), 869–887.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. C. Mortensen and T. Burgess, ‘On Logical Strength and Weakness’, History and Philosophy of Logic 10 (1989), 47–51.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. D. Nelson, ‘Negation and the Separation of Concepts in Constructive Systems’, pp. 208–225 in A. Heyting (ed.), Contructivity in Mathematics: Proceedings of a conference held at Amsterdam 1957, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Francesco Paoli, Substructural Logics: A Primer, Kluwer, Dordrecht 2002.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Jean Porte, ‘Congruences in Lemmon’s S0.5’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 21 (1980), 672–678.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. A. N. Prior, ‘Time and Change’, Ratio 10 (1968), 173–177.

    Google Scholar 

  31. W. V. Quine, ‘Grades of Discriminability’, pp. 129–133 in Quine, Theories and Things, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1981. (Article originally published 1976.)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dana Scott, ‘Rules and Derived Rules’, pp. 147–161 in S. Stenlund (ed.), Logical Theory and Semantic Analysis, Reidel, Dordrecht 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  33. K. Segerberg, Classical Propositional Operators, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1982.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Timothy Smiley, ‘The Independence of Connectives’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 27 (1962), 426–436.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. M. Spasowski, ‘Some Properties of the Operation d’, Reports on Mathematical Logic 3 (1974), 53–56.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Neil Tennant, ‘Deductive Versus Expressive Power: A Pre-Gödelian Predicament’, in Journal of Philosophy 97 (2000), 257–277.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. A. S. Troelstra and D. van Dalen, Constructivism in Mathematics: An Introduction, Vols. I and II, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  38. R. Wójcicki, ‘Dual Counterparts of Consequence Operations’, Bulletin of the Section of Logic (Polish Academy of Sciences) 2 (1973), 54–57.

    Google Scholar 

  39. R. Wójcicki, Theory of Logical Calculi, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Monash University, Wellington Rd., Clayton, Victoria, 3800, Australia

    Lloyd Humberstone

Authors
  1. Lloyd Humberstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation, University of Neuchâtel, Espace Louis Agassiz 1, 2000, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Jean-Yves Beziau

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Birkhäuser Verlag Basel/Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Humberstone, L. (2007). Logical Discrimination. In: Beziau, JY. (eds) Logica Universalis. Birkhäuser Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8354-1_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation