Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Ways Things Can't Be

Greg Restall

Abstract

Paraconsistent logics are often semantically motivated by considering "impossible worlds." Lewis, in "Logic for equivocators," has shown how we can understand paraconsistent logics by attributing equivocation of meanings to inconsistent believers. In this paper I show that we can understand paraconsistent logics without attributing such equivocation. Impossible worlds are simply sets of possible worlds, and inconsistent believers (inconsistently) believe that things are like each of the worlds in the set. I show that this account gives a sound and complete semantics for Priest's paraconsistent logic LP, which uses materials any modal logician has at hand.

Article information

Source
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic Volume 38, Number 4 (1997), 583-596.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 10 December 2002

Permanent link to this document
http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1039540771

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1039540771

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR1648854

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
0916.03015

Subjects
Primary: 03B53: Paraconsistent logics
Secondary: 03A05: Philosophical and critical {For philosophy of mathematics, see also 00A30} 03B45: Modal logic (including the logic of norms) {For knowledge and belief, see 03B42; for temporal logic, see 03B44; for provability logic, see also 03F45}

Citation

Restall, Greg. Ways Things Can't Be. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 38 (1997), no. 4, 583--596. doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1039540771. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1039540771.


Export citation

References

  • [1] Anderson, A. R., and N. D. Belnap, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.
  • [2] Dunn, J. M., ``Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailments and `coupled trees','' Philosophical Studies, vol. 29 (1976), p. 149--68.
  • [3] Lewis, D., ``Logic for equivocators,'' Noûs, vol. 16 (1982), p. 431--41.
  • [4] Lewis, D. K., On the Plurality of Worlds, Blackwell, Oxford, 1986.
  • [5] Priest, G., ``The logic of paradox,'' Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8 (1979), pp. 219--41.
  • [6] Priest, G., ``Minimally inconsistent ŁP,'' Studia Logica, vol. 50 (1991), pp. 321--31.
  • [7] Rescher, N., and R. Manor, ``On inference from inconsistent premises,'' Theory and Decision, vol. 1 (1970), pp. 179--217.
  • [8] Restall, G., ``Truthmakers, entailment and necessity,'' Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 74 (1996), pp. 331--40.
  • [9] Stalnaker, R., Inquiry, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1984.