We investigate whether ordinary quantification over objects is an extensional phenomenon, or rather creates non-extensional contexts; each claim having been propounded by prominent philosophers. It turns out that the question only makes sense relative to a background theory of syntax and semantics (here called a grammar) that goes well beyond the inductive definition of formulas and the recursive definition of satisfaction. Two schemas for building quantificational grammars are developed, one that invariably constructs extensional grammars (in which quantification, in particular, thus behaves extensionally) and another that only generates non-extensional grammars (and in which quantification is responsible for the failure of extensionality). We then ask whether there are reasons to favor one of these grammar schemas over the other, and examine an argument according to which the proper formalization of deictic utterances requires adoption of non-extensional grammars.

This paper extends the investigations into logical properties of the quantified argument calculus (Quarc) by suggesting a series of proper subsystems which, although retaining the entire vocabulary of Quarc, restrict quantification in such a way as to make the result decidable. The proof of decidability is via a procedure that prunes the infinite branches of a derivation tree in what is a syntactic counterpart of semantic filtration. We demonstrate an application of one of these systems by showing that Aristotle’s assertoric syllogistic is embeddable within, thus also providing another method of showing its decidability.

Reasoning with quantifier expressions in natural language combines logical and arithmetical features, transcending strict divides between qualitative and quantitative. Our topic is this cooperation of styles as it occurs in common linguistic usage and its extension into the broader practice of natural language plus ‘grassroots mathematics’.

We begin with a brief review of $\mathsf {FO}(\#)$, first-order logic with counting operators and cardinality comparisons. This system is known to be of very high complexity, and drowns out finer aspects of the combination of logic and counting. We therefore move to a small fragment that can represent numerical syllogisms and basic reasoning about comparative size: monadic first-order logic with counting, $\mathsf {MFO}(\#)$. We provide normal forms that allow for axiomatization, determine which arithmetical notions can be defined on finite and on infinite models, and conversely, we discuss which logical notions can be defined out of purely arithmetical ones, and what sort of (non-)classical logics can be induced.

Next, we investigate a series of strengthenings of $\mathsf {MFO}(\#)$, again using normal form methods. The monadic second-order version is close, in a precise sense, to additive Presburger Arithmetic, while versions with the natural device of tuple counting take us to Diophantine equations, making the logic undecidable. We also define a system $\mathsf {ML}(\#)$ that combines basic modal logic over binary accessibility relations with counting, needed to formulate ubiquitous reasoning patterns such as the Pigeonhole Principle. We prove decidability of $\mathsf {ML}(\#)$, and provide a new kind of bisimulation matching the expressive power of the language.

As a complement to the fragment approach pursued here, we also discuss two other ways of lowering the complexity of $\mathsf {FO}(\#)$ by changing the semantics of counting in natural ways. A first approach replaces cardinalities by abstract but well-motivated values of ‘mass’ or other mereological aggregating notions. A second approach keeps the cardinalities but generalizes the meaning of counting to work in models that allow dependencies between variables.

Finally, we return to our starting point in natural language, confronting the architecture of our formal systems with linguistic quantifier vocabulary and syntax, as well as with natural reasoning modules such as the monotonicity calculus. In addition to these encounters with formal semantics, we discuss the role of counting in semantic evaluation procedures for quantifier expressions and determine, for instance, which binary quantifiers are computable by finite ‘semantic automata’. We conclude with some general thoughts on yet further entanglements of logic and counting in formal systems, on rethinking the qualitative/quantitative divide, and on connecting our analysis to empirical findings in cognitive science.

The aim of this paper is to provide a complete Natural Kind Semantics for an Essentialist Theory of Kinds. The theory is formulated in two-sorted first order monadic modal logic with identity. The natural kind semantics is based on Rudolf Willes Theory of Concept Lattices. The semantics is then used to explain several consequences of the theory, including results about the specificity (species–genus) relations between kinds, the definitions of kinds in terms of genera and specific differences and the existence of negative kinds. First, I show under which conditions the Hierarchy principle, which has been subjected to counterexamples in the literature, holds. I also show that a different principle about the species–genus relations between kinds, namely Kant’s Law, follows from the essentialist theory. Second, I introduce two new operations for kinds and show that they can be used to provide traditional definitions of kinds in terms of genera and specific differences. Finally, I show that these operations of specific difference induce, for each kind, a uniquely specified contrary kind and a uniquely specified subcontrary kind, which can be used as semantic values for non-classical predicate negations of kind terms.

Neo-Fregeanism aims to provide a possible route to knowledge of arithmetic via Hume’s principle, but this is of only limited significance if it cannot account for how the vast majority of arithmetic knowledge, accrued by ordinary people, is obtained. I argue that Hume’s principle does not capture what is ordinarily meant by numerical identity, but that we can do much better by buttressing plural logic with plural versions of the ancestral operator, obtaining natural and plausible characterizations of various key arithmetic concepts, including finiteness, equinumerosity and addition and multiplication of cardinality—revealing these to be logical concepts, and obtaining much of ordinary arithmetic knowledge as logical knowledge. Supplementing this with an abstraction principle and a simple axiom of infinity (known either empirically or modally) we obtain a full interpretation of arithmetic.

The present thesis lies at the interface of logic and linguistics; its object of study are control sentences with overt pronouns in Romance languages (European and Brazilian Portuguese, Italian and Spanish). This is a topic that has received considerably more attention on the part of linguists, especially in recent years, than from logicians. Perhaps for this reason, much remains to be understood about these linguistic structures and their underlying logical properties. This thesis seeks to fill the lacunas in the literature or at least take steps in this direction by way of addressing a number of issues that have so far been under-explored. To this end, we put forward two key questions, one linguistic and the other logical. These are, respectively, (1) What is the syntactic status of the surface pronoun? and (2) What are the available mechanisms to reuse semantic resources in a contraction-free logical grammar? Accordingly, the thesis is divided into two parts: generative linguistics and categorial grammar. Part I starts by reviewing the recent discussion within the generative literature on infinitive clauses with overt subjects, paying detailed attention to the main accounts in the field. Part II does the same on the logical grammar front, addressing in particular the issues of control and of anaphoric pronouns. Ultimately, the leading accounts from both camps will be found wanting. The closing chapter of each of Part I and Part II will thus put forward alternative candidates, that we contend are more successful than their predecessors. More specifically, in Part I, we offer a linguistic account along the lines of Landau’s T/Agr theory of control. In Part II, we present two alternative categorial accounts: one based on Combinatory Categorial Grammar, the other on Type-Logical Grammar. Each of these accounts offers an improved, more fine-grained perspective on control infinitives featuring overt pronominal subjects. Finally, we include an Appendix in which our type-logical proposal is implemented in a categorial parser/theorem-prover.

Abstract prepared by María Inés Corbalán.

E-mail: inescorbalan@yahoo.com.ar

URL: http://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/331697

Inquisitive first-order logic, InqBQ, is a system which extends classical first-order logic with formulas expressing questions. From a mathematical point of view, formulas in this logic express properties of sets of relational structures. This paper makes two contributions to the study of this logic. First, we describe an Ehrenfeucht–Fraïssé game for InqBQ and show that it characterizes the distinguishing power of the logic. Second, we use the game to study cardinality quantifiers in the inquisitive setting. That is, we study what statements and questions can be expressed in InqBQ about the number of individuals satisfying a given predicate. As special cases, we show that several variants of the question how many individuals satisfy $\alpha (x)$ are not expressible in InqBQ, both in the general case and in restriction to finite models.

The Quantified argument calculus (Quarc) has received a lot of attention recently as an interesting system of quantified logic which eschews the use of variables and unrestricted quantification, but nonetheless achieves results similar to the Predicate calculus (PC) by employing quantifiers applied directly to predicates instead. Despite this noted similarity, the issue of the relationship between Quarc and PC has so far not been definitively resolved. We address this question in the present paper, and then expand upon that result.

Utilizing recent developments in structural proof theory, we develop a G3-style sequent calculus for Quarc and briefly demonstrate its structural properties. We put these properties to use immediately to construct direct proofs of the meta-theoretical properties of the system. We then incorporate an abstract (and, as we shall see, logical) predicate into the system in a way that preserves all the structural properties. This allows us to identify a system of Quarc which is deductively equivalent to PC, and also yields a constructive method of demonstrating the Craig interpolation theorem (which speaks in favor of the aforementioned predicate being logical). We further generalize this extension to develop a bivalent system of Quarc with defining clauses that still maintains all the desirable properties of a good proof system.

This paper explores relational syllogistic logics, a family of logical systems related to reasoning about relations in extensions of the classical syllogistic. These are all decidable logical systems. We prove completeness theorems and complexity results for a natural subfamily of relational syllogistic logics, parametrized by constructors for terms and for sentences.

In this paper, we axiomatize the deontic logic in Fusco (2015), which uses a Stalnaker-inspired account of diagonal acceptance and a two-dimensional account of disjunction to treat Ross’s Paradox and the Puzzle of Free Choice Permission. On this account, disjunction-involving validities are a priori rather than necessary. We show how to axiomatize two-dimensional disjunction so that the introduction/elimination rules for boolean disjunction can be viewed as one-dimensional projections of more general two-dimensional rules. These completeness results help make explicit the restrictions Fusco’s account must place on free-choice inferences. They are also of independent interest, as they raise difficult questions about how to “lift” a Kripke frame for a one-dimensional modal logic into two dimensions.

We present epistemic multilateral logic, a general logical framework for reasoning involving epistemic modality. Standard bilateral systems use propositional formulae marked with signs for assertion and rejection. Epistemic multilateral logic extends standard bilateral systems with a sign for the speech act of weak assertion (Incurvati & Schlöder, 2019) and an operator for epistemic modality. We prove that epistemic multilateral logic is sound and complete with respect to the modal logic $\mathbf {S5}$ modulo an appropriate translation. The logical framework developed provides the basis for a novel, proof-theoretic approach to the study of epistemic modality. To demonstrate the fruitfulness of the approach, we show how the framework allows us to reconcile classical logic with the contradictoriness of so-called Yalcin sentences and to distinguish between various inference patterns on the basis of the epistemic properties they preserve.

We consider Hilbert-style non–well-founded derivations in the Gödel-Löb provability logic GL and establish that GL with the obtained derivability relation is globally complete for algebraic and neighbourhood semantics.

This article investigates the proof theory of the Quantified Argument Calculus (Quarc) as developed and systematically studied by Hanoch Ben-Yami [3, 4]. Ben-Yami makes use of natural deduction (Suppes-Lemmon style), we, however, have chosen a sequent calculus presentation, which allows for the proofs of a multitude of significant meta-theoretic results with minor modifications to the Gentzen’s original framework, i.e., LK. As will be made clear in course of the article LK-Quarc will enjoy cut elimination and its corollaries (including subformula property and thus consistency).

First-order formalisations are often preferred to propositional ones because they are thought to underwrite the validity of more arguments. We compare and contrast the ability of some well-known logics—these two in particular—to formally capture valid and invalid arguments. We show that there is a precise and important sense in which first-order logic does not improve on propositional logic in this respect. We also prove some generalisations and related results of philosophical interest. The rest of the article investigates the results’ philosophical significance. A first moral is that the correct way to state the oft-cited superiority of first-order logic vis-à-vis propositional logic is more nuanced than often thought. The second moral concerns semantic theory; the third logic’s use as a tool for discovery. A fourth and final moral is that second-order logic’s transcendence of first-order logic is greater than first-order logic’s transcendence of propositional logic.

When embedding data are used to argue against semantic theory A and in favor of semantic theory B, it is important to ask whether A could make sense of those data. It is possible to ask that question on a case-by-case basis. But suppose we could show that A can make sense of all the embedding data which B can possibly make sense of. This would, on the one hand, undermine arguments in favor of B over A on the basis of embedding data. And, provided that the converse does not hold—that is, that A can make sense of strictly more embedding data than B can—it would also show that there is a precise sense in which B is more constrained than A, yielding a pro tanto simplicity-based consideration in favor of B. In this paper I develop tools which allow us to make comparisons of this kind, which I call comparisons of potential expressive power. I motivate the development of these tools by way of exploration of the recent debate about epistemic modals. Prominent theories which have been developed in response to embedding data turn out to be strictly less expressive than the standard relational theory, a fact which necessitates a reorientation in how to think about the choice between these theories.

This article examines two syllogistic arguments contrasted in an ancient Chinese book, the Mozi, which expounds doctrines of the Mohist school of philosophers. While the arguments seem to have the same form, one of them (the one-horse argument) is valid but the other (the two-horse argument) is not. To explain this difference, the article uses English plural constructions to formulate the arguments. Then it shows that the one-horse argument is valid because it has a valid argument form, the plural cousin of a standard form of valid categorical syllogisms (Plural Barbara), and argues that the two-horse argument involves equivocal uses of a key predicate (the Chinese counterpart of ‘have four feet’) that has the distributive/nondistributive ambiguity. In doing so, the article discusses linguistic differences between Chinese and English and explains why the logic of plural constructions is applicable to Chinese arguments that involve no plural constructions.

Standard conditionals $\varphi > \psi$, by which I roughly mean variably strict conditionals à la Stalnaker and Lewis, are trivially true for impossible antecedents. This article investigates three modifications in a doxastic setting. For the neutral conditional, all impossible-antecedent conditionals are false, for the doxastic conditional they are only true if the consequent is absolutely necessary, and for the metaphysical conditional only if the consequent is ‘model-implied’ by the antecedent. I motivate these conditionals logically, and also doxastically by properties of conditional belief and belief revision. For this I show that the Lewisian hierarchy of conditional logics can be reproduced within ranking semantics, provided we slightly stretch the notion of a ranking function. Given this, acceptance of a conditional can be interpreted as a conditional belief. The epistemic and the neutral conditional deviate from Lewis’ weakest system $V$, in that ID ($\varphi > \varphi$) or even CN ($\varphi > \top$) are dropped, and new axioms appear. The logic of the metaphysical conditional is completely axiomatised by $V$ to which we add the known Kripke axioms T5 for the outer modality. Related completeness results for variations of the ranking semantics are obtained as corollaries.

In two recent articles, Norihiro Kamide introduces unusual variants of Nelson’s paraconsistent logic and its classical extension. Kamide’s systems, IP and CP, are unusual insofar as double negations in these logics behave as intuitionistic and classical negations, respectively. In this article we present Hilbert-style axiomatizations of both IP and CP. The axiom system for IP is shown to be sound and complete with respect to a four-valued Kripke semantics, and the axiom system for CP is characterized by four-valued truth tables. Moreover, we note some properties of IP and CP, and emphasize that these logics are unusual also because they are contra-classical and inconsistent but nontrivial. We point out that Kamide’s approach exemplifies a general method for obtaining contra-classical logics, and we briefly speculate about a linguistic application of Kamide’s logics.

This article enlarges classical syllogistic logic with assertions having to do with comparisons between the sizes of sets. So it concerns a logical system whose sentences are of the following forms: All x are y and Some x are y, There are at least as many x as y, and There are more x than y. Here x and y range over subsets (not elements) of a given infinite set. Moreover, x and y may appear complemented (i.e., as $\bar{x}$ and $\bar{y}$), with the natural meaning. We formulate a logic for our language that is based on the classical syllogistic. The main result is a soundness/completeness theorem. There are efficient algorithms for proof search and model construction.

This paper investigates formal logics for reasoning about determinacy and independence. Propositional Dependence Logic ${\cal D}$ and Propositional Independence Logic ${\cal I}$ are recently developed logical systems, based on team semantics, that provide a framework for such reasoning tasks. We introduce two new logics ${{\cal L}_D}$ and ${{\cal L}_{\,I\,}}$, based on Kripke semantics, and propose them as alternatives for ${\cal D}$ and ${\cal I}$, respectively. We analyse the relative expressive powers of these four logics and discuss the way these systems relate to natural language. We argue that ${{\cal L}_D}$ and ${{\cal L}_{\,I\,}}$ naturally resolve a range of interpretational problems that arise in ${\cal D}$ and ${\cal I}$. We also obtain sound and complete axiomatizations for ${{\cal L}_D}$ and ${{\cal L}_{\,I\,}}$.