In previous publications, it was shown that finite non-deterministic matrices are quite powerful in providing semantics for a large class of normal and non-normal modal logics. However, some modal logics, such as those whose axiom systems contained the Löb axiom or the McKinsey formula, were not analyzed via non-deterministic semantics. Furthermore, other modal rules than the rule of necessitation were not yet characterized in the framework.

In this paper, we will overcome this shortcoming and present a novel approach for constructing semantics for normal and non-normal modal logics that is based on restricted non-deterministic matrices. This approach not only offers a uniform semantical framework for modal logics, while keeping the interpretation of the involved modal operators the same, and thus making different systems of modal logic comparable. It might also lead to a new understanding of the concept of modality.

The family of relevant logics can be faceted by a hierarchy of increasingly fine-grained variable sharing properties—requiring that in valid entailments $A\to B$, some atom must appear in both A and B with some additional condition (e.g., with the same sign or nested within the same number of conditionals). In this paper, we consider an incredibly strong variable sharing property of lericone relevance that takes into account the path of negations and conditionals in which an atom appears in the parse trees of the antecedent and consequent. We show that this property of lericone relevance holds of the relevant logic $\mathbf {BM}$ (and that a related property of faithful lericone relevance holds of $\mathbf {B}$) and characterize the largest fragments of classical logic with these properties. Along the way, we consider the consequences for lericone relevance for the theory of subject-matter, for Logan’s notion of hyperformalism, and for the very definition of a relevant logic itself.

In this paper we study logical bilateralism understood as a theory of two primitive derivability relations, namely provability and refutability, in a language devoid of a primitive strong negation and without a falsum constant, $\bot $, and a verum constant, $\top $. There is thus no negation that toggles between provability and refutability, and there are no primitive constants that are used to define an “implies falsity” negation and a “co-implies truth” co-negation. This reduction of expressive power notwithstanding, there remains some interaction between provability and refutability due to the presence of (i) a conditional and the refutability condition of conditionals and (ii) a co-implication and the provability condition of co-implications. Moreover, assuming a hyperconnexive understanding of refuting conditionals and a dual understanding of proving co-implications, neither non-trivial negation inconsistency nor hyperconnexivity is lost for unary negation connectives definable by means of certain surrogates of falsum and verum. Whilst a critical attitude towards $\bot $ and $\top $ can be justified by problematic aspects of the Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation of the logical operations for these constants, the aim to reduce the availability of a toggling negation and observations on undefinability may also give further reasons to abandon $\bot $ and $\top $.

This paper presents a reverse mathematical analysis of several forms of the sorites paradox. We first illustrate how traditional discrete formulations are reliant on Hölder’s representation theorem for ordered Archimedean groups. While this is provable in $\mathsf {RCA}_0$, we also consider two forms of the sorites which rest on non-constructive principles: the continuous sorites of Weber & Colyvan [35] and a variant we refer to as the covering sorites. We show in the setting of second-order arithmetic that the former depends on the existence of suprema and thus on arithmetical comprehension ($\mathsf {ACA}_0$) while the latter depends on the Heine–Borel theorem and thus on Weak König’s lemma ($\mathsf {WKL}_0$). We finally illustrate how recursive counterexamples to these principles provide resolutions to the corresponding paradoxes which can be contrasted with supervaluationist, epistemicist, and constructivist approaches.

Some informal arguments are valid, others are invalid. A core application of logic is to tell us which is which by capturing these validity facts. Philosophers and logicians have explored how well a host of logics carry out this role, familiar examples being propositional, first-order and second-order logic. Since natural language and standard logics are countable, a natural question arises: is there a countable logic guaranteed to capture the validity patterns of any language fragment? That is, is there a countable omega-universal logic? Our article philosophically motivates this question, makes it precise, and then answers it. It is a self-contained, concise sequel to ‘Capturing Consequence’ by A.C. Paseau (RSL vol. 12, 2019).

The generic multiverse was introduced in [74] and [81] to explicate the portion of mathematics which is immune to our independence techniques. It consists, roughly speaking, of all universes of sets obtainable from a given universe by forcing extension. Usuba recently showed that the generic multiverse contains a unique definable universe, assuming strong large cardinal hypotheses. On the basis of this theorem, a non-pluralist about set theory could dismiss the generic multiverse as irrelevant to what set theory is really about, namely that unique definable universe. Whatever one’s attitude towards the generic multiverse, we argue that certain impure proofs ensure its ongoing relevance to the foundations of set theory. The proofs use forcing-fragile theories and absoluteness to prove ${\mathrm {ZFC}}$ theorems about simple “concrete” objects.