Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis (SIA) is a remarkable late twentieth-century theory of analysis. It is based on nilsquare infinitesimals, and does not rely on limits. SIA poses a challenge of motivating its use of intuitionistic logic beyond merely avoiding inconsistency. The classical-modal account(s) provided here attempt to do just that. The key is to treat the identity of an arbitrary nilsquare, e, in relation to 0 or any other nilsquare, as objectually vague or indeterminate—pace a famous argument of Evans [10]. Thus, we interpret the necessity operator of classical modal logic as “determinateness” in truth-value, naturally understood to satisfy the modal system, S4 (the accessibility relation on worlds being reflexive and transitive). Then, appealing to the translation due to Gödel et al., and its proof-theoretic faithfulness (“mirroring theorem”), we obtain a core classical-modal interpretation of SIA. Next we observe a close connection with Kripke semantics for intuitionistic logic. However, to avoid contradicting SIA’s non-classical treatment of identity relating nilsquares, we translate “=” with a non-logical surrogate, ‘E,’ with requisite properties. We then take up the interesting challenge of adding new axioms to the core CM interpretation. Two mutually incompatible ones are considered: one being the positive stability of identity and the other being a kind of necessity of indeterminate identity (among nilsquares). Consistency of the former is immediate, but the proof of consistency of the latter is a new result. Finally, we consider moving from CM to a three-valued, semi-classical framework, SCM, based on the strong Kleene axioms. This provides a way of expressing “indeterminacy” in the semantics of the logic, arguably improving on our CM. SCM is also proof-theoretically faithful, and the extensions by either of the new axioms are consistent.

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 $.

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).

We say that a Kripke model is a GL-model (Gödel and Löb model) if the accessibility relation $\prec $ is transitive and converse well-founded. We say that a Kripke model is a D-model if it is obtained by attaching infinitely many worlds $t_1, t_2, \ldots $, and $t_\omega $ to a world $t_0$ of a GL-model so that $t_0 \succ t_1 \succ t_2 \succ \cdots \succ t_\omega $. A non-normal modal logic $\mathbf {D}$, which was studied by Beklemishev [3], is characterized as follows. A formula $\varphi $ is a theorem of $\mathbf {D}$ if and only if $\varphi $ is true at $t_\omega $ in any D-model. $\mathbf {D}$ is an intermediate logic between the provability logics $\mathbf {GL}$ and $\mathbf {S}$. A Hilbert-style proof system for $\mathbf {D}$ is known, but there has been no sequent calculus. In this paper, we establish two sequent calculi for $\mathbf {D}$, and show the cut-elimination theorem. We also introduce new Hilbert-style systems for $\mathbf {D}$ by interpreting the sequent calculi. Moreover, we show that D-models can be defined using an arbitrary limit ordinal as well as $\omega $. Finally, we show a general result as follows. Let X and $X^+$ be arbitrary modal logics. If the relationship between semantics of X and semantics of $X^+$ is equal to that of $\mathbf {GL}$ and $\mathbf {D}$, then $X^+$ can be axiomatized based on X in the same way as the new axiomatization of $\mathbf {D}$ based on $\mathbf {GL}$.

The aim of this paper is to give a full exposition of Leibniz’s mereological system. My starting point will be his papers on Real Addition, and the distinction between the containment and the part-whole relation. In the first part (§2), I expound the Real Addition calculus; in the second part (§3), I introduce the mereological calculus by restricting the containment relation via the notion of homogeneity which results in the parthood relation (this corresponds to an extension of the Real Addition calculus via what I call the Homogeneity axiom). I analyze in detail such a notion, and argue that it implies a gunk conception of (proper) part. Finally, in the third part (§4), I scrutinize some of the applications of the containment-parthood distinction showing that a number of famous Leibnizian doctrines depend on it.

The logico-algebraic study of Lewis’s hierarchy of variably strict conditional logics has been essentially unexplored, hindering our understanding of their mathematical foundations, and the connections with other logical systems. This work starts filling this gap by providing a logico-algebraic analysis of Lewis’s logics. We begin by introducing novel finite axiomatizations for Lewis’s logics on the syntactic side, distinguishing between global and local consequence relations on Lewisian sphere models on the semantical side, in parallel to the case of modal logic. As first main results, we prove the strong completeness of the calculi with respect to the corresponding semantical consequence on spheres, and a deduction theorem. We then demonstrate that the global calculi are strongly algebraizable in terms of a variety of Boolean algebras with a binary operator representing the counterfactual implication; in contrast, we show that the local ones are generally not algebraizable, although they can be characterized as the degree-preserving logic over the same algebraic models. This yields the strong completeness of all the logics with respect to the algebraic models.

The seminal Krajewski–Kotlarski–Lachlan theorem (1981) states that every countable recursively saturated model of $\mathsf {PA}$ (Peano arithmetic) carries a full satisfaction class. This result implies that the compositional theory of truth over $\mathsf {PA}$ commonly known as $\mathsf {CT}^{-}[\mathsf {PA}]$ is conservative over $\mathsf {PA}$. In contrast, Pakhomov and Enayat (2019) showed that the addition of the so-called axiom of disjunctive correctness (that asserts that a finite disjunction is true iff one of its disjuncts is true) to $\mathsf {CT}^{-}[\mathsf {PA}]$ axiomatizes the theory of truth $\mathsf {CT}_{0}[\mathsf {PA}]$ that was shown by Wcisło and Łełyk (2017) to be nonconservative over $\mathsf {PA}$. The main result of this paper (Theorem 3.12) provides a foil to the Pakhomov–Enayat theorem by constructing full satisfaction classes over arbitrary countable recursively saturated models of $\mathsf {PA}$ that satisfy arbitrarily large approximations of disjunctive correctness. This shows that in the Pakhomov–Enayat theorem the assumption of disjunctive correctness cannot be replaced with any of its approximations.

For relevant logics, the admissibility of the rule of proof $\gamma $ has played a significant historical role in the development of relevant logics. For first-order logics, however, there have been only a handful of $\gamma $-admissibility proofs for a select few logics. Here we show that, for each logic L of a wide range of propositional relevant logics for which excluded middle is valid (with fusion and the Ackermann truth constant), the first-order extensions QL and LQ admit $\gamma $. Specifically, these are particular “conventionally normal” extensions of the logic $\mathbf {G}^{g,d}$, which is the least propositional relevant logic (with the usual relational semantics) that admits $\gamma $ by the method of normal models. We also note the circumstances in which our results apply to logics without fusion and the Ackermann truth constant.

Propositional temporal logic over the real number time flow is finitely axiomatisable, but its first-order counterpart is not recursively axiomatisable. We study the logic that combines the propositional axiomatisation with the usual axioms for first-order logic with identity, and develop an alternative “admissible” semantics for it, showing that it is strongly complete for admissible models over the reals. By contrast there is no recursive axiomatisation of the first-order temporal logic of admissible models whose time flow is the integers, or any scattered linear ordering.

The continuum has been one of the most controversial topics in mathematics since the time of the Greeks. Some mathematicians, such as Euclid and Cantor, held the position that a line is composed of points, while others, like Aristotle, Weyl, and Brouwer, argued that a line is not composed of points but rather a matrix of a continued insertion of points. In spite of this disagreement on the structure of the continuum, they did distinguish the temporal line from the spatial line. In this paper, we argue that there is indeed a difference between the intuition of the spatial continuum and the intuition of the temporal continuum. The main primary aspect of the temporal continuum, in contrast with the spatial continuum, is the notion of orientation.

The continuum has usually been mathematically modeled by Cauchy sequences and the Dedekind cuts. While in the first model, each point can be approximated by rational numbers, in the second one, that is not possible constructively. We argue that points on the temporal continuum cannot be approximated by rationals as a temporal point is a flow that sinks to the past. In our model, the continuum is a collection of constructive Dedekind cuts, and we define two topologies for temporal continuum: 1. oriented topology and 2. the ordinary topology. We prove that every total function from the oriented topological space to the ordinary one is continuous.

This paper initiates the reverse mathematics of social choice theory, studying Arrow’s impossibility theorem and related results including Fishburn’s possibility theorem and the Kirman–Sondermann theorem within the framework of reverse mathematics. We formalise fundamental notions of social choice theory in second-order arithmetic, yielding a definition of countable society which is tractable in ${\mathsf {RCA}}_0$. We then show that the Kirman–Sondermann analysis of social welfare functions can be carried out in ${\mathsf {RCA}}_0$. This approach yields a proof of Arrow’s theorem in ${\mathsf {RCA}}_0$, and thus in $\mathrm {PRA}$, since Arrow’s theorem can be formalised as a $\Pi ^0_1$ sentence. Finally we show that Fishburn’s possibility theorem for countable societies is equivalent to ${\mathsf {ACA}}_0$ over ${\mathsf {RCA}}_0$.