Search

Sorites is an ancient piece of paradoxical reasoning pertaining to sets with the following properties: (Supervenience) elements of the set are mapped into some set of "attributes"; (Tolerance) if an element has a given attribute then so are the elements in some vicinity of this element; and (Connectedness) such vicinities can be arranged into pairwise overlapping finite chains connecting two elements with different attributes. Obviously, if Superveneince is assumed, then (1) Tolerance implies lack of Connectedness, and (2) Connectedness implies lack of Tolerance. Using a very general but precise definition of "vicinity", Dzhafarov & Dzhafarov (2010) offered two formalizations of these mutual contrapositions. Mathematically, the formalizations are equally valid, but in this paper, we offer a different basis by which to compare them. Namely, we show that the formalizations have different proof-theoretic strengths when measured in the framework of reverse mathematics: the formalization of (1) is provable in RCA0, while the formalization of (2) is equivalent to ACA0 over RCA0. Thus, in a certain precise sense, the approach of (1) is more constructive than that of (2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigate the expressive power of memory logics. These are modal logics extended with the possibility to store (or remove) the current node of evaluation in (or from) a memory, and to perform membership tests on the current memory. From this perspective, the hybrid logic ℋℒ (↓), for example, can be thought of as a particular case of a memory logic where the memory is an indexed list of elements of the domain.This work focuses in the case where the memory is a set, and we can test whether the current node belongs to the set or not. We prove that, in terms of expressive power, the memory logics we discuss here lie between the basic modal logic $(\cal K)$ and ℋℒ (↓). We show that the satisfiability problem of most of the logics we cover is undecidable. The only logic with a decidable satisfiability problem is obtained by imposing strong constraints on which elements can be memorized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Kant (1998) envisaged a prominent role for logic in the argumentative structure of his Critique of Pure Reason, logicians and philosophers have generally judged Kant’s logic negatively. What Kant called ‘general’ or ‘formal’ logic has been dismissed as a fairly arbitrary subsystem of first-order logic, and what he called ‘transcendental logic’ is considered to be not a logic at all: no syntax, no semantics, no definition of validity. Against this, we argue that Kant’s ‘transcendental logic’ is a logic in the strict formal sense, albeit with a semantics and a definition of validity that are vastly more complex than that of first-order logic. The main technical application of the formalism developed here is a formal proof that Kant’s Table of Judgements in Section 9 of the Critique of Pure Reason, is indeed, as Kant claimed, complete for the kind of semantics he had in mind. This result implies that Kant’s ‘general’ logic is after all a distinguished subsystem of first-order logic, namely what is known as geometric logic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]