The first section of the paper establishes the minimal properties of so-called consequential implication and shows that they are satisfied by at least two different operators of decreasing strength and \). Only the former has been analyzed in recent literature, so the paper focuses essentially on the latter. Both operators may be axiomatized in systems which are shown to be translatable into standard systems of normal modal logic. The central result of the paper is that the minimal consequential system for (...) \, CI\, is definitionally equivalent to the deontic system KD and is intertranslatable with the minimal consequential system for \, CI. The main drawback ot the weaker operator \ is that it lacks unrestricted contraposition, but the final section of the paper argues that \ has some properties which make it a valuable alternative to \, turning out especially plausible as a basis for the definition of operators representing synthetic conditionals. (shrink)

The paper aims at developing the idea that the standard operator of noncontingency, usually symbolized by Δ, is a special case of a more general operator of dyadic noncontingency Δ(−, −). Such a notion may be modally defined in different ways. The one examined in the paper is __Δ__(B, A) = df ◊B ∧ (A ⥽ B ∨ A ⥽ ¬B), where ⥽ stands for strict implication. The operator of dyadic contingency __∇__(B, A) is defined as the negation of __Δ__(B, (...) A). Possibility (◊A) may be then defined as __Δ__(A, A), necessity (□A) as __∇__(¬A, ¬A) and standard monadic noncontingency (__Δ__A) as __Δ__( \({\textsf{T}}\), A). In the second section it is proved that the deontic system KD is translationally equivalent to an axiomatic system of dyadic noncontingency named KDΔ 2, and that the minimal system KΔ of monadic contingency is a fragment of KDΔ 2. The last section suggests lines for further inquiries. (shrink)

The basis of the paper is a logic of analytical consequential implication, CI.0, which is known to be equivalent to the well-known modal system KT thanks to the definition A → B = df A ⥽ B ∧ Ξ (Α, Β), Ξ (Α, Β) being a symbol for what is called here Equimodality Property: (□A ≡ □B) ∧ (◊A ≡ ◊B). Extending CI.0 (=KT) with axioms and rules for the so-called circumstantial operator symbolized by *, one obtains a system CI.0*Eq (...) in whose language one can define an operator ↠ suitable to formalize context-dependent conditionals (so to counterfactual conditionals) via the definition (Def ↠) A ↠ B = df *A ⥽ B ∧ Ξ (Α, Β).. The central problem of the paper is to identify inside CI.0*Eq + Def ↠ a set of axioms yielding the fragment consisting of all and only theorems in which only truth-functional operators and the two operators → and ↠ occur. This system, here called CI.0, is introduced in §3. In view of the intended purpose, it is introduced a complete and tableau-decidable system KTw, which is an extension of KT with axioms for the so-called quasi-variables w(A), w(B)… Three translation functions among the three languages used in the paper are then introduced. The first, Tr, maps every wff of form *A into wffs of form w(A) ∧ A and translates theorems of CI.0*Eq into theorems of KTw. The second, t°, translates theorems of CI.0 into theorems of CI.0*Eq by applying Def↠. A third one, t, translates theorems of CI.0 into theorems of KTw. As a consequence, it follows that t°A = TrtA. In §4 it is proved that CI.0 is complete w.r.t. the class of CI.0-models of form where f is a selection function and R an access relation. It is then proved (i) that CI.0 models may be converted into KTw-models; (ii) that the truth-value of a proposition in a world of a CI.0-model is preserved in the same world of the derived KTw-model; (iii) that A is a CI.0-thesis iff its translation tA is KTw-thesis. It follows that, if A is not a CI.0-thesis, tA is not a KTw-thesis, so also that TrtA is not a CI.0*Eq-thesis. Since t°A = TrtA and t°A is a function built on Def↠, this proves that every t°-translation of a CI.0-wff that is a CI.0*Eq-theorem is a CI.0-theorem. Since the converse proposition is proved in §2, their conjunction establishes the desired result. In the final section, it is proved that CI.0 is tableau-decidable, that ↠ is not a trivial operator and that ↠ enjoys the positive and negative properties required in §1 for context-dependent conditionals. Some final remarks suggest that studying the relations between CI.0 and systems of classical conditional logic may be a promising line of investigation. (shrink)

In the present work we provide a logical analysis of normatively determined and non-determined propositions. The normative status of these propositions depends on their relation with another proposition, here named reference proposition. Using a formal language that includes a monadic operator of obligation, we define eight dyadic operators that represent various notions of “being normatively (non-)determined”; then, we group them into two families, each forming an Aristotelian square of opposition. Finally, we show how the two resulting squares can be combined (...) to form an Aristotelian cube of opposition. (shrink)

The present article is devoted to a logical inquiry on the notions of permanence and termination, which play a central role in many areas of temporal reasoning. In the first part, we introduce a bimodal framework to represent these notions and provide a syntactic and semantic comparison with a monomodal framework representing the notion of future necessity. In the second part, we focus on the problem of defining synonymous logical systems over the two frameworks; as an example, we provide an (...) extended analysis of two systems, the monomodal K4 and the bimodal S4X. The third part of the article indicates possible developments of the proposed line of inquiry, such as finding a simple representation in the bimodal language of some interesting properties of time and identifying further pairs of synonymous systems. (shrink)