Strong Kleene Research Articles

Categoricity Problem for LP and K3

AbstractEven though the strong relationship between proof-theoretic and model-theoretic notions in one’s logical theory can be shown by soundness and completeness proofs, whether we can define the model-theoretic notions by means of the inferences in a proof system is not at all trivial. For instance, provable inferences in a proof system of classical logic in the logical framework do not determine its intended models as shown by Carnap (Formalization of logic, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1943), i.e., there are non-Boolean models that satisfy its provable inferences. In the literature, this is known as the Categoricity problem or Carnap’s problem. In this paper, we will discuss the Categoricity problem (or Carnap’s problem) for three-valued logics K3 and LP. We will provide three different restrictions on admissible models that will deliver us categoricity results, some of which draw from the solutions provided for the Categoricity problem for classical logic in Belnap and Massey (Stud Log 49(1):67–82, 1990) and Bonnay and Westerståhl (Erkenntis 81(4):721–739, 2016). We will then argue that two of those solutions are philosophically well-motivated: (1) restricting the admissible models where negation is interpreted as a Strong Kleene truth-function, and (2) restricting the admissible models where a complex formula is assigned the third value when its immediate subformulas are assigned the third value.

How to Conquer the Liar and Enthrone the Logical Concept of Truth

This article informally presents a solution to the paradoxes of truth and shows how the solution solves classical paradoxes (such as the original Liar) as well as the paradoxes that were invented as counterarguments for various proposed solutions (“the revenge of the Liar”). This solution complements the classical procedure of determining the truth values of sentences by its own failure and, when the procedure fails, through an appropriate semantic shift allows us to express the failure in a classical two-valued language. Formally speaking, the solution is a language with one meaning of symbols and two valuations of the truth values of sentences. The primary valuation is a classical valuation that is partial in the presence of the truth predicate. It enables us to determine the classical truth value of a sentence or leads to the failure of that determination. The language with the primary valuation is precisely the largest intrinsic fixed point of the strong Kleene three-valued semantics (LIFPSK3). The semantic shift that allows us to express the failure of the primary valuation is precisely the classical closure of LIFPSK3: it extends LIFPSK3 to a classical language in parts where LIFPSK3 is undetermined. Thus, this article provides an argumentation, which has not been present in contemporary debates so far, for the choice of LIFPSK3 and its classical closure as the right model for the truth predicate. In the end, an erroneous critique of Kripke-Feferman axiomatic theory of truth, which is present in contemporary literature, is pointed out.

Change of logic, without change of meaning

AbstractChange of logic is typically taken as requiring that the meanings of the connectives change too. As a result, it has been argued that legitimate rivalry between logics is under threat. This is, in a nutshell, the meaning‐variance argument, traditionally attributed to Quine. In this paper, we present a semantic framework that allows us to resist the meaning‐variance claim for an important class of systems: classical logic, the logic of paradox and strong Kleene logic. The major feature of the semantics is that the connectives have the same meanings in these systems, so that the meaning‐variance argument is straightforwardly blocked. We discuss the effects of this semantics for two uses of the argument of meaning variance, and also consider its impact on related issues.

Minimally Nonstandard K3 and FDE

Graham Priest has formulated the minimally inconsistent logic of paradox (MiLP), which is paraconsistent like Priest’s logic of paradox (LP), while staying closer to classical logic. We present logics that stand to (the propositional fragments of) strong Kleene logic (K3) and the logic of first-degree entailment (FDE) as MiLP stands to LP. That is, our logics share the paracomplete and the paraconsistent-cum-paracomplete nature of K3 and FDE, respectively, while keeping these features to a minimum in order to stay closer to classical logic. We give semantic and sequent-calculus formulations of these logics, and we highlight some reasons why these logics may be interesting in their own right.

On all pure three-valued logics

Abstract We investigate the class of all pure three-valued logics that result from choosing the eight subsets of $\{0, 1, \frac {1}{2}\}$ as designated values on the strong Kleene schema, including the sets that are not (order) filters. We present some of their main characteristics and show some formal relations between these logics. We also suggest a recipe to build philosophical interpretations for most of these logics and show why it is not easy to apply this account to the last two logics in the list.

Expressing logical disagreement from within

Against the backdrop of the frequent comparison of theories of truth in the literature on semantic paradoxes with regard to which inferences and metainferences are deemed valid, this paper develops a novel approach to defining a binary predicate for representing the valid inferences and metainferences of a theory within the theory itself under the assumption that the theory is defined with a classical meta-theory. The aim with the approach is to obtain a tool which facilitates the comparison between a theory and its competitors within the theory itself, thereby expressing the disagreement between the theories within the theories. After discussing what we can and should require of an object-linguistic representation of a theory for that purpose, this paper proposes to restrict the representation of valid metainferences to locally valid metainferences, a requirement which turns out to be omega -consistent and conservative over classical first-order arithmetic. This approach is then applied to four theories definable on strong Kleene models using a labelled nested sequent calculus.

Higher-level Inferences in the Strong-Kleene Setting: A Proof-theoretic Approach

Building on early work by Girard (1987) and using closely related techniques from the proof theory of many-valued logics, we propose a sequent calculus capturing a hierarchy of notions of satisfaction based on the Strong Kleene matrices introduced by Barrio et al. (Journal of Philosophical Logic 49:93–120, 2020) and others. The calculus allows one to establish and generalize in a very natural manner several recent results, such as the coincidence of some of these notions with their classical counterparts, and the possibility of expressing some notions of satisfaction for higher-level inferences using notions of satisfaction for inferences of lower level. We also show that at each level all notions of satisfaction considered are pairwise distinct and we address some remarks on the possible significance of this (huge) number of notions of consequence.

Secrecy, Content, and Quantification

While participating in a symposium on Dave Ripley’s forthcoming book Uncut, I had proposed that employing a strict-tolerant interpretation of the weak Kleene matrices provided a content-theoretical conception of the bounds of conversational norms that enjoyed advantages over Ripley’s use of the strong Kleene matrices. During discussion, I used the case of sentences that are taken to be out-of-bounds for being secrets as an example of a case in which the setting of conversational bounds in practice diverged from the account championed by Ripley. In this paper, I consider an objection that my treatment of quantifiers was mistaken insofar as the confidentiality of a sentence ϕ(t) may not lift to the sentence ∃xϕ(x) and draw from this objection that neither the strong nor the weak Kleene interpretation of quantifiers suffices, but that a novel interpretation may do so.

Metainferential Reasoning on Strong Kleene Models

Barrio et al. (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 49(1), 93–120, 2020) and Pailos (Review of Symbolic Logic, 2020(2), 249–268, 2020) develop an approach to define various metainferential hierarchies on strong Kleene models by transferring the idea of distinct standards for premises and conclusions from inferences to metainferences. In particular, they focus on a hierarchy named the mathbb {S}mathbb {T}-hierarchy where the inferential logic at the bottom of the hierarchy is the non-transitive logic ST but where each subsequent metainferential logic ‘says’ about the former logic that it is transitive. While Barrio et al. (2020) suggests that this hierarchy is such that each subsequent level ‘in some intuitive sense, more classical than’ the previous level, Pailos (2020) proposes an extension of the hierarchy through which a ‘fully classical’ metainferential logic can be defined. Both Barrio et al. (2020) and Pailos (2020) explore the hierarchy in terms of semantic definitions and every proof proceeds by a rather cumbersome reasoning about those semantic definitions. The aim of this paper is to present and illustrate the virtues of a proof-theoretic tool for reasoning about the mathbb {S}mathbb {T}-hierarchy and the other metainferential hierarchies definable on strong Kleene models. Using the tool, this paper argues that each level in the mathbb {S}mathbb {T}-hierarchy is non-classical to an equal extent and that the ‘fully classical’ metainferential logic is actually just the original non-transitive logic ST ‘in disguise’. The paper concludes with some remarks about how the various results about the mathbb {S}mathbb {T}-hierarchy could be seen as a guide to help us imagine what a non-transitive metalogic for ST would tell us about ST. In particular, it teaches us that ST is from the perspective of ST as metatheory not only non-transitive but also transitive.

Normalisation for Some Quite Interesting Many-Valued Logics

In this paper, we consider a set of quite interesting three- and four-valued logics and prove the normalisation theorem for their natural deduction formulations. Among the logics in question are the Logic of Paradox, First Degree Entailment, Strong Kleene logic, and some of their implicative extensions, including RM3 and RM3⊃. Also, we present a detailed version of Prawitz’s proof of Nelson’s logic N4 and its extension by intuitionist negation.

Strict/Tolerant Logics Built Using Generalized Weak Kleene Logics


 
 
 This paper continues my work of [9], which showed there was a broad family of many valued logics that have a strict/tolerant counterpart. Here we consider a generalization of weak Kleene three valued logic, instead of the strong version that was background for that earlier work. We explain the intuition behind that generalization, then determine a subclass of strict/tolerant structures in which a generalization of weak Kleene logic produces the same results that the strong Kleene generalization did. This paper provides much background, but is not self-contained. Some results from [9] are called on, and are not reproved here.
 
 
 
 [9] Melvin C. Fitting. “A Family of Strict/Tolerant Logics”. In: Journal of Philosophical Logic (2020). Online. Print publication forthcoming.
 
 
 
 
 

Exactly true and non-falsity logics meeting infectious ones

In this paper, we study logical systems which represent entailment relations of two kinds. We extend the approach of finding ‘exactly true’ and ‘non-falsity’ versions of four-valued logics that emerged in series of recent works [Pietz & Rivieccio (2013). Nothing but the truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 42(1), 125–135; Shramko (2019). Dual-Belnap logic and anything but falsehood. Journal of Logics and their Applications, 6, 413–433; Shramko et al. (2017). First-degree entailment and its relatives. Studia Logica, 105(6), 1291–1317] to the case of infectious logics, namely to the case of Deutsch's logic introduced in Deutsch [Relevant analytic entailment. The Relevance Logic Newsletter, 2(1), 26–44; The completeness of S. Studia Logica, 38(2), 137–147]. The particular systems obtained in this way are and . We present them in the form of sequent calculi and prove corresponding soundness and completeness theorems. We illuminate the connection between , and two well-known systems, strong Kleene three-valued logic and Priest's Logic of Paradox . This connection allows us to investigate the characterisation of the entailment relations associated with and as well as to introduce the notion of ‘infectious analogue’ of a certain logic. We also study implicative extensions of and and prove soundness and completeness theorems for them as well.

On Presupposition Projection with Trivalent Connectives

A basic puzzle about presuppositions concerns their projection from propositional constructions. This problem has regained much attention in the last decade since many of its prominent accounts, including variants of the trivalent Strong Kleene connectives, suffer from the so-called *proviso problem*.This paper argues that basic insights of the Strong Kleene system can be used without invoking the proviso problem. It is shown that the notion of *determinant value* that underlies the definition of the Strong Kleene connectives leads to a natural generalization of the filtering conditions proposed in Karttunen's article ``Presuppositions of compound sentences'' (LI, 1973). Incorporating this generalized condition into an incremental projection algorithm avoids the proviso problem as well as the derivation of conditional presuppositions. It is argued that the same effects that were previously modelled using conditional presuppositions may be viewed as effects of presupposition suspension and contextual inference on presupposition projection.

Truth in a Logic of Formal Inconsistency: How classical can it get?

AbstractWeakening classical logic is one of the most popular ways of dealing with semantic paradoxes. Their advocates often claim that such weakening does not affect non-semantic reasoning. Recently, however, Halbach and Horsten (2006) have shown that this is actually not the case for Kripke’s fixed-point theory based on the Strong Kleene evaluation scheme. Feferman’s axiomatization $\textsf{KF}$ in classical logic is much stronger than its paracomplete counterpart $\textsf{PKF}$, not only in terms of semantic but also in arithmetical content. This paper compares the proof-theoretic strength of an axiomatization of Kripke’s construction based on the paraconsistent evaluation scheme of $\textsf{LP}$, formulated in classical logic with that of an axiomatization directly formulated in $\textsf{LP}$, extended with a consistency operator. The ultimate goal is to find out whether paraconsistent solutions to the paradoxes that employ consistency operators fare better in this respect than paracomplete ones.

Generalized Correspondence Analysis for Three-Valued Logics

Correspondence analysis is Kooi and Tamminga’s universal approach which generates in one go sound and complete natural deduction systems with independent inference rules for tabular extensions of many-valued functionally incomplete logics. Originally, this method was applied to Asenjo–Priest’s paraconsistent logic of paradox LP. As a result, one has natural deduction systems for all the logics obtainable from the basic three-valued connectives of LP (which is built in the $$ \{\vee ,\wedge ,\lnot \} $$ -language) by the addition of unary and binary connectives. Tamminga has also applied this technique to the paracomplete analogue of LP, strong Kleene logic $$ \mathbf K_3 $$ . In this paper, we generalize these results for the negative fragments of LP and $$ \mathbf K_3 $$ , respectively. Thus, the method of correspondence analysis works for the logics which have the same negations as LP or $$ \mathbf K_3 $$ , but either have different conjunctions or disjunctions or even don’t have them as well at all. Besides, we show that correspondence analyses for the negative fragments of $$ \mathbf K_3 $$ and LP, respectively, are also suitable without any changes for the negative fragments of Heyting’s logic $$ \mathbf G_3 $$ and its dual $$ \mathbf DG_3 $$ (which have different interpretations of negation than $$ \mathbf K_3 $$ and LP).

Fixed-Point Posets in Theories of Truth

We show that any coherent complete partial order (ccpo) is obtainable as the fixed-point poset of the strong Kleene jump of a suitably chosen first-order ground model. This is a strengthening of Visser’s result that any finite ccpo is obtainable in this way. The same is true for the van Fraassen supervaluation jump, but not for the weak Kleene jump.

Automated Proof-searching for Strong Kleene Logic and its Binary Extensions via Correspondence Analysis

Using the method of correspondence analysis, Tamminga obtains sound and complete natural deduction systems for all the unary and binary truth-functional extensions of Kleene’s strong three-valued logic K3 . In this paper, we extend Tamminga’s result by presenting an original finite, sound and complete proof-searching technique for all the truth-functional binary extensions of K3.

Supervaluation-Style Truth Without Supervaluations

Kripke’s theory of truth is arguably the most influential approach to self-referential truth and the semantic paradoxes. The use of a partial evaluation scheme is crucial to the theory and the most prominent schemes that are adopted are the strong Kleene and the supervaluation scheme. The strong Kleene scheme is attractive because it ensures the compositionality of the notion of truth. But under the strong Kleene scheme classical tautologies do not, in general, turn out to be true and, as a consequence, classical reasoning is no longer admissible once the notion of truth is involved. The supervaluation scheme adheres to classical reasoning but violates compositionality. Moreover, it turns Kripke’s theory into a rather complicated affair: to check whether a sentence is true we have to look at all admissible precisification of the interpretation of the truth predicate we are presented with. One consequence of this complicated evaluation condition is that under the supervaluation scheme a more proof-theoretic characterization of Kripke’s theory becomes inherently difficult, if not impossible. In this paper we explore the middle ground between the strong Kleene and the supervaluation scheme and provide an evaluation scheme that adheres to classical reasoning but retains many of the attractive features of the strong Kleene scheme. We supplement our semantic investigation with a novel axiomatic theory of truth that matches the semantic theory we have put forth.

Articulation and Liars

AbstractJamie Tappenden was one of the first authors to entertain the possibility of a common treatment for the Liar and the Sorites paradoxes. In order to deal with these two paradoxes he proposed using the Strong Kleene semantic scheme. This strategy left unexplained our tendency to regard as true certain sentences which, according to this semantic scheme, should lack truth value. Tappenden tried to solve this problem by using a new speech act, articulation. Unlike assertion, which implies truth, articulation only implies non-falsity. In this paper I argue that Tappenden’s strategy cannot be successfully applied to truth and the Liar.

Truth, Partial Logic and Infinitary Proof Systems

In this paper we apply proof theoretic methods used for classical systems in order to obtain upper bounds for systems in partial logic. We focus on a truth predicate interpreted in a Kripke style way via strong Kleene; whereas the aim is to connect harmoniously the partial version of Kripke–Feferman with its intended semantics. The method we apply is based on infinitary proof systems containing an $$\omega $$ -rule.