Multiple-Conclusion Logic

Shoesmith, D. J.; Smiley, Timothy

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511565687

Cited by 235 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also will extend Shoesmith and Smiley's (3] generalized soundness and completeness results for consequence relations generated by valuations that admit neither gaps nor gluts to those that do.…”

Section: Rumfittmentioning

confidence: 75%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Categorical Consequence for Paraconsistent Logic

Johnson¹,

Woodruff²

2002

Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consequence relations over sets of "judgments" are defined by using "overdetermined" as well as "underdetermined" valuations. Some of these relations are shown to be categorical. And generalized soundness and completeness results are given for both multiple and single conclusion categorical consequence relations. Rumfitt(1] discusses multiple-conclusion consequence relations defined over sets whose members, if any, are assertions or rejections. The consequence relations are generated by sets of valuations whose m~mbers include those that admit truth value gaps-there are sentences that are neither true nor false on some valuations. Rumfitt shows that the consequence relations are categorical-that is, the consequence relations generated by distinct sets of valuations are distinct. Given Rumfitt's work, it is natural to ask whether categoricity holds for multiple-conclusion consequence relations generated by sets of valuations whose members include those that admit truth value gluts -there are sentences that are both true and false on some valuations. We will show that the answer is Yes.Johnson [2] extends Rumfitt's work to obtain categoricity results for single conclusion consequence relations generated by valuations that allow truth-value gaps. We will extend his discussion by considering valuations that allow truth-value gluts.We also will extend Shoesmith and Smiley's (3] generalized soundness and completeness results for consequence relations generated by valuations that admit neither gaps nor gluts to those that do. 1 1 Our discussion is heavily influenced by Shoesmith and Smiley [3] and Smiley [4]. The latter gives credit to Carnap [5] and [6] for initiating discussions of rejection and categoricity, respectively. This remark by Smiley [4, p. 7] is especially noteworthy: 'If I am right, the practice of identifying a calculus with its consequence relation is only justified if specifying the consequence relation is sufficient to determine the entire sentential output of the semantics.' We endorse Smiley's view that the common practice of identifying calculi by using non-categorical consequence relations is a mistake. 141

show abstract

Section: Rumfittmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…1 1 Our discussion is heavily influenced by Shoesmith and Smiley [3] and Smiley [4]. The latter gives credit to Carnap [5] and [6] for initiating discussions of rejection and categoricity, respectively.…”

Section: Rumfittmentioning

confidence: 99%

Categorical Consequence for Paraconsistent Logic

Johnson¹,

Woodruff²

2002

Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(In its present form, it appears in [63] and [14].) The following facts are easily proved and well known; see for instance [8] or [15].…”

Section: Notation Modmentioning

confidence: 96%

Admissible Rules and the Leibniz Hierarchy

Raftery¹

2016

Notre Dame J. Formal Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper provides a semantic analysis of admissible rules and associated completeness conditions for arbitrary deductive systems, using the framework of abstract algebraic logic. Algebraizability is not assumed, so the meaning and significance of the principal notions vary with the level of the Leibniz hierarchy at which they are presented. As a case study of the resulting theory, the non-algebraizable fragments of relevance logic are considered.

show abstract

“…We will make use of the notion of a multiple-conclusion entailment (see [20], see also [21]), which denotes a relation between sets of declarative well-formed formulas generalising the standard relation of entailment.…”

Section: ])mentioning

confidence: 99%