Rejection in Łukasiewicz's and Słupecki's Sense

The idea of rejection originated by Aristotle. The notion of rejection was introduced into formal logic by Łukasiewicz [20]. He applied it to complete syntactic characterization of deductive systems using an axiomatic method of rejection of propositions [22, 23]. The paper gives not only genesis, but also development and generalization of the notion of rejection. It also emphasizes the methodological approach to biaspectual axiomatic method of characterization of deductive systems as acceptance (asserted) systems and rejection (refutation) systems, introduced by Łukasiewicz and developed by his student Słupecki, the pioneers of the method, which becomes relevant in modern approaches to logic

Two types of indefinites: Hilbert & Russell

This paper compares Hilbert’s -terms and Russell’s approach to indefinite descriptions, Russell’s indefinites for short. Despite the fact that both accounts are usually taken to express indefinite descriptions, there is a number of dissimilarities. Specifically, it can be shown that Russell indefinites - expressed in terms of a logical ρ-operator - are not directly representable in terms of their corresponding -terms. Nevertheless, there are two possible translations of Russell indefinites into epsilon logic. The first one is given in a language with classical -terms. The second translation is based on a refined account of epsilon terms, namely indexed -terms. In what follows we briefly outline these approaches both syntactically and semantically and discuss their respective connections; in particular, we establish two equivalence results between the (indexed) epsilon calculus and the proposed ρ-term approach to Russell’s indefinites

Suszko's Problem: Mixed Consequence and Compositionality

Suszko's problem is the problem of finding the minimal number of truth values needed to semantically characterize a syntactic consequence relation. Suszko proved that every Tarskian consequence relation can be characterized using only two truth values. Malinowski showed that this number can equal three if some of Tarski's structural constraints are relaxed. By so doing, Malinowski introduced a case of so-called mixed consequence, allowing the notion of a designated value to vary between the premises and the conclusions of an argument. In this paper we give a more systematic perspective on Suszko's problem and on mixed consequence. First, we prove general representation theorems relating structural properties of a consequence relation to their semantic interpretation, uncovering the semantic counterpart of substitution-invariance, and establishing that (intersective) mixed consequence is fundamentally the semantic counterpart of the structural property of monotonicity. We use those to derive maximum-rank results proved recently in a different setting by French and Ripley, as well as by Blasio, Marcos and Wansing, for logics with various structural properties (reflexivity, transitivity, none, or both). We strengthen these results into exact rank results for non-permeable logics (roughly, those which distinguish the role of premises and conclusions). We discuss the underlying notion of rank, and the associated reduction proposed independently by Scott and Suszko. As emphasized by Suszko, that reduction fails to preserve compositionality in general, meaning that the resulting semantics is no longer truth-functional. We propose a modification of that notion of reduction, allowing us to prove that over compact logics with what we call regular connectives, rank results are maintained even if we request the preservation of truth-functionality and additional semantic properties.Comment: Keywords: Suszko's thesis; truth value; logical consequence; mixed consequence; compositionality; truth-functionality; many-valued logic; algebraic logic; substructural logics; regular connective

A “Distributive” or a “Collective” Approach to Sentences?

It is a well-known fact that the Russell’s antinomy arises within distributive set theory whereas it does not do so within collective set theory. n this paper, I shall propose what I shall call a “collective” understanding of a sentence as opposed to the standard, truth-functional approach which I shall term a “distributive" approach. Similar to the case with sets, the liar antinomy appears when the liar sentence is treated distributively. If, however, the sentence is understood collectively, then the liar antimony does not appear