Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:07:05.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON THE WAY TO A WIDER MODEL THEORY: COMPLETENESS THEOREMS FOR FIRST-ORDER LOGICS OF FORMAL INCONSISTENCY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2014

WALTER CARNIELLI ,
MARCELO E. CONIGLIO ,
RODRIGO PODIACKI  and
TARCÍSIO RODRIGUES
WALTER CARNIELLI*
Affiliation:
Centre for Logic, Epistemology and the History of Science – CLE and Department of Philosophy – UNICAMP
MARCELO E. CONIGLIO*
Affiliation:
Centre for Logic, Epistemology and the History of Science – CLE and Department of Philosophy – UNICAMP
RODRIGO PODIACKI*
Affiliation:
Centre for Logic, Epistemology and the History of Science – CLE and Department of Philosophy – UNICAMP
TARCÍSIO RODRIGUES*
Affiliation:
Centre for Logic, Epistemology and the History of Science – CLE and Department of Philosophy – UNICAMP
*
*CENTRE FOR LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE - CLE – UNICAMP, P.O. BOX 6133, 13083-970, CAMPINAS, SP, BRAZIL E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY–UNICAMP, P.O. BOX 6133, 13083-970, CAMPINAS, SP, BRAZIL
*CENTRE FOR LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE - CLE – UNICAMP, P.O. BOX 6133, 13083-970, CAMPINAS, SP, BRAZIL E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY–UNICAMP, P.O. BOX 6133, 13083-970, CAMPINAS, SP, BRAZIL
*CENTRE FOR LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE - CLE – UNICAMP, P.O. BOX 6133, 13083-970, CAMPINAS, SP, BRAZIL E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY–UNICAMP, P.O. BOX 6133, 13083-970, CAMPINAS, SP, BRAZIL
*CENTRE FOR LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE - CLE – UNICAMP, P.O. BOX 6133, 13083-970, CAMPINAS, SP, BRAZIL E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY–UNICAMP, P.O. BOX 6133, 13083-970, CAMPINAS, SP, BRAZIL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the question of characterizing first-order LFIs (logics of formal inconsistency) by means of two-valued semantics. LFIs are powerful paraconsistent logics that encode classical logic and permit a finer distinction between contradictions and inconsistencies, with a deep involvement in philosophical and foundational questions. Although focused on just one particular case, namely, the quantified logic QmbC, the method proposed here is completely general for this kind of logics, and can be easily extended to a large family of quantified paraconsistent logics, supplying a sound and complete semantical interpretation for such logics. However, certain subtleties involving term substitution and replacement, that are hidden in classical structures, have to be taken into account when one ventures into the realm of nonclassical reasoning. This paper shows how such difficulties can be overcome, and offers detailed proofs showing that a smooth treatment of semantical characterization can be given to all such logics. Although the paper is well-endowed in technical details and results, it has a significant philosophical aside: it shows how slight extensions of classical methods can be used to construct the basic model theory of logics that are weaker than traditional logic due to the absence of certain rules present in classical logic. Several such logics, however, as in the case of the LFIs treated here, are notorious for their wealth of models precisely because they do not make indiscriminate use of certain rules; these models thus require new methods. In the case of this paper, by just appealing to a refined version of the Principle of Explosion, or Pseudo-Scotus, some new constructions and crafty solutions to certain nonobvious subtleties are proposed. The result is that a richer extension of model theory can be inaugurated, with interest not only for paraconsistency, but hopefully to other enlargements of traditional logic.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 548 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alves, E. (1984). Paraconsistent logic and model theory. Studia Logica, 43(1/2), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avron, A., & Lev, I. (2001). Canonical propositional Gentzen-type systems. In Gore, R., Leitsch, A., & Nipkow, T., editors. Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), Vol. 2083. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 529–544.Google Scholar
Avron, A., & Lev, I. (2005). Non-deterministic multi-valued structures. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avron, A., & Zamansky, A. (2007). Many-valued non-deterministic semantics for first-order logics of formal (in)consistency. In Aguzzoli, S., Ciabattoni, A., Gerla, B., Manara, C., & Marra, V., editors. Algebraic and Proof-theoretic Aspects of Non-classical Logics. Papers in Honor of Daniele Mundici on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4460. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Carnielli, W., & Coniglio, M. E. (2013). Paraconsistent set theory by predicating on consistency. Journal of Logic and Computation ( First published online: July 9, 2013). DOI: 10.1093/logcom/ext020.Google Scholar
Carnielli, W., & Coniglio, M. E. (2014). Swap structures for LFI’s. CLE e-Prints, 14(1). Available from: http://www.cle.unicamp.br/e-prints/vol_14,n_1,2014.html.Google Scholar
Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M. E., & Marcos, J. (2007). Logics of formal inconsistency. In Gabbay, D. & Guenthner, F., editors. Handbook of Philosophical Logic (2nd. edition). Vol. 14, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–93.Google Scholar
Carnielli, W. A., & Marcos, J. (2002). A taxonomy of C-systems. In Carnielli, W. A., Coniglio, M. E., & Ottaviano, I. M. L. D., editors. Paraconsistency: The Logical Way to the Inconsistent. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Paraconsistency (WCP 2000). Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 228. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 1–94.Google Scholar
Carnielli, W. A., Marcos, J., & de Amo, S. (2000). Formal inconsistency and evolutionary databases. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 8, 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, C. C., & Keisler, H. J. (1990). Model Theory (Third ed.). Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 73. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Coniglio, M. E., & Silvestrini, L. H. (2014). An alternative approach for quasi-truth. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 22(2), 387–410. DOI: 10.1093/ljigpal/jzt026.Google Scholar
da Costa, N. C. A. (1963). Sistemas formais inconsistentes (Inconsistent formal systems, in Portuguese). Habilitation thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. Republished by Editora UFPR, Curitiba, Brazil, 1993.Google Scholar
da Costa, N. C. A. (1974). On the theory of inconsistent formal systems (Lecture delivered at the First Latin-American Colloquium on Mathematical Logic, held at Santiago, Chile, July 1970). Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15(4), 497–510.Google Scholar
da Costa, N. C. A., & Alves, E. (1977). A semantical analysis of the calculi C n. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 18(4), 621–630.Google Scholar
D’Ottaviano, I. M. L. (1982). Sobre uma Teoria de Modelos Trivalente (On a three-valued model theory, in Portuguese). Ph. D. thesis, IMECC-State University of Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
D’Ottaviano, I. M. L. (1985a). The completeness and compactness of a three-valued first order logic. Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas, XIX(1–2), 31–42.Google Scholar
D’Ottaviano, I. M. L. (1985b). The model extension theorems for J3-theories. In Di Prisco, C. A., editor. Methods in Mathematical Logic. Proceedings of the 6th Latin American Symposium on Mathematical Logic held in Caracas, Venezuela, Aug. 1-6, 1983. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1130, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 157–173.Google Scholar
D’Ottaviano, I. M. L. (1987). Definability and quantifier elimination for J3-theories. Studia Logica, 46(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Ottaviano, I. M. L., & da Costa, N. C. A. (1970). Sur un problème de Jaśkowski. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie de Sciences de Paris (A-B), 270, 1349–1353.Google Scholar
Hodges, W., & Scanlon, T. (2013). First-order model theory. In Zalta, E. N., editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 ed.). Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=modeltheory-fo.Google Scholar
Mendelson, E. (1987). Introduction to Mathematical Logic (Third ed.). New York: Chapman & Hall, pp. 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikenberg, I., da Costa, N. C. A., & Chuaqui, R. (1986). Pragmatic truth and approximation to truth. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 51(1), 201–221.Google Scholar
Podiacki, R. (2008). Lógicas da inconsistência formal quantificadas (Quantified logics of formal inconsistency, in Portuguese). Masters thesis, IFCH-State University of Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2006). In Contradiction: a study of the transconsistent (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 76–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, T. G. (2010). Sobre os fundamentos da programação lógica paraconsistente (On the foundations of paraconsistent logic programming, in Portuguese). Masters thesis, IFCH-State University of Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
Shoenfield, J. R. (1967). Mathematical Logic. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
Wójcicki, R. (1984). Lectures on propositional calculi. Theorem 22.2. Wroclaw, Poland: Ossolineum, pp. 54–55. Available from: http://www.ifispan.waw.pl/studialogica/wojcicki/papers.html.Google Scholar