Advertisement

Refutation Systems in Propositional Logic

  • Tomasz Skura
Chapter
Part of the Handbook of Philosophical Logic book series (HALO, volume 16)

Abstract

By a refutation system N we mean an inference system consisting of refutation axioms and refutation rules. Refutation axioms are non-valid formulas, and refutation rules are rules preserving non-validity.

Keywords

Normal Form Modal Logic Classical Logic Propositional Logic Intuitionistic 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. [Barringer et al., 2005]
    H. Barringer, D. Gabbay, and J. Woods. Temporal dynamics of argumentation network. In D. Hutter and W. Stephan, editors, Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning, pages 59–98. Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. [Chagrov and Zakharyashchev, 1991]
    A. Chagrov and M. Zakharyashchev. The disjunction property of intermediate logics. Studia Logica, 50:189–216, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [da Costa and Béziau, 1993]
    N.C.A. da Costa and J.-Y. Béziau. Carnot’s logic. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 22:98–105, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [Fitting, 1983]
    M. Fitting. Proof Methods for Modal and Intuitionistic Logics. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [Gabbay, 2008]
    D.M. Gabbay. Logical modes of attack in argumentation networks. 2008.Google Scholar
  6. [Goranko, 1994]
    V. Goranko. Refutation systems in modal logic. Studia Logica, 53:199– 324, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Hughes and Cresswell, 1968]
    G.G. Hughes and M.J. Cresswell. An Introduction to Modal Logic. Methuen, London, 1968.Google Scholar
  8. [Hughes and Cresswell, 1984]
    G.G. Hughes and M.J. Cresswell. A Companion to Modal Logic. Methuen, London, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. [Kleene, 1952]
    S.C. Kleene. Introduction to Metamathematics. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1952.Google Scholar
  10. [Lemmon and Scott, 1977]
    E.J. Lemmon and D. Scott. An Introduction to Modal Logic, in collaboration with D. Scott. Blackwell, Oxford, 1977.Google Scholar
  11. [Łukasiewicz, 1951]
    J. Łukasiewicz. Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic. Clarendon, Oxford, 1951.Google Scholar
  12. [Łukasiewicz, 1952]
    J. Łukasiewicz. On the intuitionistic theory of deduction. Indagationes Mathematicae, 14: 202-212, 1952.Google Scholar
  13. [Mints, 1990]
    G. Mints. Gentzen-type systems and resolution rules. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 417:198–231, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [Scott, 1957]
    D. Scott. Completeness proofs for the intuitionistic sentential calculus. In Summaries of talks presented at the Summer Institute of Symbolic Logic. Cornell University, 1957. second edition, Princeton, 1960, 231-241.Google Scholar
  15. [Skura, 1989]
    T. Skura. A complete syntactical characterization of the intuitionistic logic. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 23:75–80, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. [Skura, 1992]
    T. Skura. Refutation calculi for certain intermediate propositional logics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 33:552–560, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [Skura, 1994]
    T. Skura. Syntactic refutations against finite models in modal logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 35:595–605, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Skura, 1995]
    T. Skura. A Lukasiewicz-style refutation system for the modal logic S4. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24:573–582, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Skura, 2002]
    T. Skura. Refutations, proofs, and models in the modal logic K4. Studia Logica, 70:193–204, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [Skura, 2004]
    T. Skura. Maximality and refutability. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 45:65–72, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [Wajsberg, 1938]
    M. Wajsberg. Untersuchungen über den Aussagenkalkül von A. Heyting. Wiadomości Matematyczne, 46:429–435, 1938.Google Scholar
  22. [Wiśniewski, 2004]
    A. Wiśniewski. Socratic proofs. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33:299–326, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wroclaw UniversityWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations