{"title":"Implication, Equivalence, and Negation","authors":"Avron Arnon","doi":"10.21146/2074-1472-2021-27-1-31-45","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A system $HCL_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ in the language of {$ \\neg, \\leftrightarrow $} is obtained by adding a single negation-less axiom schema to $HLL_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ (the standard Hilbert-type system for multiplicative linear logic without propositional constants), and changing $ \\rightarrow $ to $\\leftrightarrow$. $HCL_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ is weakly, but not strongly, sound and complete for ${\\bf CL}_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ (the {$ \\neg,\\leftrightarrow$} – fragment of classical logic). By adding the Ex Falso rule to $HCL_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ we get a system with is strongly sound and complete for ${\\bf CL}_ {\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ . It is shown that the use of a new rule cannot be replaced by the addition of axiom schemas. A simple semantics for which $HCL_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ itself is strongly sound and complete is given. It is also shown that $L_{HCL}$$_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ , the logic induced by $HCL_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ , has a single non-trivial proper axiomatic extension, that this extension and ${\\bf CL}_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ are the only proper extensions in the language of { $\\neg$, $\\leftrightarrow$ } of $ {\\bf L}_{HCL}$$_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ , and that $ {\\bf L}_{HCL}$$_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ and its single axiomatic extension are the only logics in {$ \\neg, \\leftrightarrow$ } which have a connective with the relevant deduction property, but are not equivalent $\\neg$ to an axiomatic extension of ${\\bf R}_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ (the intensional fragment of the relevant logic ${\\bf R}$). Finally, we discuss the question whether $ {\\bf L}_{HCL}$$_{\\overset{\\neg}{\\leftrightarrow}}$ can be taken as a paraconsistent logic.","PeriodicalId":155189,"journal":{"name":"Logical Investigations","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logical Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-1472-2021-27-1-31-45","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A system $HCL_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ in the language of {$ \neg, \leftrightarrow $} is obtained by adding a single negation-less axiom schema to $HLL_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ (the standard Hilbert-type system for multiplicative linear logic without propositional constants), and changing $ \rightarrow $ to $\leftrightarrow$. $HCL_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ is weakly, but not strongly, sound and complete for ${\bf CL}_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ (the {$ \neg,\leftrightarrow$} – fragment of classical logic). By adding the Ex Falso rule to $HCL_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ we get a system with is strongly sound and complete for ${\bf CL}_ {\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ . It is shown that the use of a new rule cannot be replaced by the addition of axiom schemas. A simple semantics for which $HCL_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ itself is strongly sound and complete is given. It is also shown that $L_{HCL}$$_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ , the logic induced by $HCL_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ , has a single non-trivial proper axiomatic extension, that this extension and ${\bf CL}_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ are the only proper extensions in the language of { $\neg$, $\leftrightarrow$ } of $ {\bf L}_{HCL}$$_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ , and that $ {\bf L}_{HCL}$$_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ and its single axiomatic extension are the only logics in {$ \neg, \leftrightarrow$ } which have a connective with the relevant deduction property, but are not equivalent $\neg$ to an axiomatic extension of ${\bf R}_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ (the intensional fragment of the relevant logic ${\bf R}$). Finally, we discuss the question whether $ {\bf L}_{HCL}$$_{\overset{\neg}{\leftrightarrow}}$ can be taken as a paraconsistent logic.