Measuring Inconsistency in Generalized Propositional Logic Extended with Nonunary Operators

Logica Universalis 17 (3):373-404 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

As consistency is such an important topic in logic, researchers have for a long time investigated how to attain and maintain it. But consistency can also be studied from the point of view of its opposite, inconsistency. The problem with inconsistency in classical logic is that by the principle of explosion a single inconsistency leads to triviality. Paraconsistent logics were introduced to get around this problem by defining logics in such a way that the explosion principle does not apply to them. Another approach stays in the classical framework and evaluates the amount of inconsistency in a set of formulas. The great bulk of this work has been done for propositional logic and presents many interesting issues about inconsistency. A previous paper introduced the concept of generalized propositional logic (GPL) to provide a uniform method for measuring inconsistency in logics that allow the application of unary operator pairs, such as for modality, time, and space, to propositional logic formulas. The universality of GPL manifests itself in the fact that such an operator pair is evaluated in a uniform manner across all such logics. The difference lies solely in the choice of a frame for each logic. But some logics also contain nonunary operators. For example, temporal logics typically contain a binary Until operator. The purpose of this paper is to show how to extend generalized propositional logic to extended generalized propositional logic (EGPL) by adding nonunary operator pairs and measure inconsistency in such logics. The universality of EGPL manifests itself in the fact that once the evaluation of the nonunary operators is given, it carries over to all such logics. For example, the temporal Until operator becomes applicable to modal logic. Furthermore, while relative inconsistency measures were previously considered for GPL, they are now extended to EGPL and a new approach removes an undesirable feature from the previous version. Also, this paper provides results about various properties of the new inconsistency measures. Many examples and explanations are given to illustrate the issues involving this extension.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,261

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Measuring Inconsistency in Some Logics with Tense Operators.John Grant - 2022 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 63 (3):415-440.
Modal logic S4 as a paraconsistent logic with a topological semantics.Marcelo E. Coniglio & Leonardo Prieto-Sanabria - 2017 - In Caleiro Carlos, Dionisio Francisco, Gouveia Paula, Mateus Paulo & Rasga João (eds.), Logic and Computation: Essays in Honour of Amilcar Sernadas. College Publications. pp. 171-196.
Modes of Adjointness.M. Menni & C. Smith - 2013 - Journal of Philosophical Logic (2-3):1-27.
Modes of Adjointness.C. Smith & M. Menni - 2014 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 43 (2-3):365-391.
Validity Measurement in Some Propositional Logics.Branislav Boričić - 1997 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 43 (4):550-558.
Postulate satisfaction for inconsistency measures in monotonic logics and databases.John Grant - 2023 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 33 (3):537-560.
A first course in logic.Mark Verus Lawson - 2019 - Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
Logic for computer scientists.Uwe Schöning - 1989 - Boston: Birkhäuser.
Measuring inconsistency in information.John Grant & Maria Vanina Martinez (eds.) - 2018 - [London]: College Publications.
Neighbourhood semantics and generalized Kripke models.Bernd Dahn - 1976 - Bulletin of the Section of Logic 5 (1):2-7.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-09-16

Downloads
6 (#1,465,900)

6 months
3 (#984,770)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The logic of paradox.Graham Priest - 1979 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):219 - 241.
Relative inconsistency measures.Philippe Besnard & John Grant - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence 280 (C):103231.
Measuring inconsistency.Kevin Knight - 2002 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (1):77-98.
Measuring inconsistency in some branching time logics.John Grant - 2021 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 31 (2):85-107.

View all 6 references / Add more references