Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Admissible Rules and the Leibniz Hierarchy

James G. Raftery

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

This paper provides a semantic analysis of admissible rules and associated completeness conditions for arbitrary deductive systems, using the framework of abstract algebraic logic. Algebraizability is not assumed, so the meaning and significance of the principal notions vary with the level of the Leibniz hierarchy at which they are presented. As a case study of the resulting theory, the nonalgebraizable fragments of relevance logic are considered.

Article information

Source
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, Volume 57, Number 4 (2016), 569-606.

Dates
Received: 1 May 2012
Accepted: 20 June 2013
First available in Project Euclid: 1 September 2016

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1472746139

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1215/00294527-3671151

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3565538

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1357.03041

Subjects
Primary: 03B22: Abstract deductive systems 03G27: Abstract algebraic logic
Secondary: 03B47: Substructural logics (including relevance, entailment, linear logic, Lambek calculus, BCK and BCI logics) {For proof-theoretic aspects see 03F52} 08C10: Axiomatic model classes [See also 03Cxx, in particular 03C60]

Keywords
deductive system admissible rule reduced matrix structural completeness Leibniz hierarchy [order] algebraizable logic BCIW

Citation

Raftery, James G. Admissible Rules and the Leibniz Hierarchy. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 57 (2016), no. 4, 569--606. doi:10.1215/00294527-3671151. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1472746139


Export citation

References

  • [1] Anderson, A. R., and N. D. Belnap, Jr., Entailment, I: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.
  • [2] Avron, A., “Implicational $F$-structures and implicational relevance logics,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 65 (2000), pp. 788–802.
  • [3] Belardinelli, F., P. Jipsen, and H. Ono, “Algebraic aspects of cut elimination,” Studia Logica, vol. 77 (2004), pp. 209–40.
  • [4] Bergman, C., “Structural completeness in algebra and logic,” pp. 59–73 in Algebraic Logic (Budapest, 1988), edited by H. Andréka, J. D. Monk, and I. Nemeti, vol. 54 of Colloquia Mathematica Societatis János Bolyai, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991.
  • [5] Blok, W. J., and B. Jónsson, “Equivalence of consequence operations,” Studia Logica, vol. 83 (2006), pp. 91–110.
  • [6] Blok, W. J., and D. Pigozzi, “Protoalgebraic logics,” Studia Logica, vol. 45 (1986), pp. 337–69.
  • [7] Blok, W. J., and D. Pigozzi, Algebraizable Logics, vol. 77 of Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1989.
  • [8] Blok, W. J., and D. Pigozzi, “Algebraic semantics for universal Horn logic without equality,” pp. 1–56 in Universal Algebra and Quasigroup Theory (Jadwisin, 1989), edited by A. Romanowska and J. D. H. Smith, vol. 19 of Research and Exposition in Mathematics, Heldermann, Berlin, 1992.
  • [9] Blok, W. J., and D. Pigozzi, “Abstract algebraic logic and the deduction theorem,” preprint, http://orion.math.iastate.edu/dpigozzi/ (accessed 26 July 2001).
  • [10] Burris, S., and H. P. Sankappanavar, A Course in Universal Algebra, vol. 78 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 1981.
  • [11] Chagrov, A. V., “A decidable modal logic for which the admissibility of inference rules is an undecidable problem,” Algebra and Logic, vol. 31 (1992), pp. 53–61.
  • [12] Cintula, P., and G. Metcalfe, “Structural completeness in fuzzy logics,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 50 (2009), pp. 153–82.
  • [13] Cintula, P., and G. Metcalfe, “Admissible rules in the implication-negation fragment of intuitionistic logic,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 162 (2010), pp. 162–71.
  • [14] Czelakowski, J., “Equivalential logics, I,” Studia Logica, vol. 40 (1981), pp. 227–36; II, pp. 355–72.
  • [15] Czelakowski, J., Protoalgebraic Logics, vol. 10 of Studia Logica, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001.
  • [16] Czelakowski, J., “The Suszko operator, Part I,” pp. 181–231 in Abstract Algebraic Logic, Part II (Barcelona, 1997), vol. 74 of Studia Logica, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003.
  • [17] Czelakowski, J., and R. Jansana, “Weakly algebraizable logics,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 65 (2000), pp. 641–68.
  • [18] Diego, A., Sur les algèbres de Hilbert, vol. 21 of Collection de Logique Mathématique, Série A, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1966.
  • [19] Dunn, J. M., and G. Restall, “Relevance logic and entailment,” pp. 1–128 in Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 8, 2nd edition, edited by D. Gabbay, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001.
  • [20] Dzik, W., and A. Wroński, “Structural completeness of Gödel’s and Dummett’s propositional calculi,” Studia Logica, vol. 32 (1973), pp. 69–73.
  • [21] Font, J. M., R. Jansana, and D. Pigozzi, “A survey of abstract algebraic logic,” pp. 13–97 in Abstract Algebraic Logic, Part II (Barcelona, 1997), vol. 74 of Studia Logica, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003.
  • [22] Galatos, N., P. Jipsen, T. Kowalski, and H. Ono, Residuated Lattices: An Algebraic Glimpse at Substructural Logics, vol. 151 in Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
  • [23] Gorbunov, V. A., “Lattices of quasivarieties,” Algebra and Logic, vol. 15 (1976), pp. 275–88.
  • [24] Gorbunov, V. A., Algebraic Theory of Quasivarieties, Consultants Bureau, New York, 1998.
  • [25] Gorbunov, V. A., and V. I. Tumanov, “Construction of lattices of quasivarieties,” pp. 12–44 in Mathematical Logic and the Theory of Algorithms, vol. 2 of Trudy Instituta Matematiki Sibirsk. Otdel. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1982.
  • [26] Grätzer, G., and H. Lakser, “A note on the implicational class generated by a class of structures,” Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, vol. 16 (1973), pp. 603–5.
  • [27] Herrmann, B., “Characterizing equivalential and algebraizable logics by the Leibniz operator,” Studia Logica, vol. 58 (1997), pp. 305–23.
  • [28] Hsieh, A., and J. G. Raftery, “Conserving involution in residuated structures,” Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 53 (2007), pp. 583–609.
  • [29] Lorenzen, P., Einführung in die operative Logik und Mathematik, vol. 78 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer, Berlin, 1955.
  • [30] Łoś, J., O matrycach logicznych, vol. 19 of Travaux de la Société des Sciences et des Lettres de Wroclaw, Série B, Wroclaw, 1949.
  • [31] Łoś, J., and R. Suszko, “Remarks on sentential logics,” Indigationes Mathematicae (N.S.), vol. 20 (1958), pp. 177–83.
  • [32] Makinson, D., “A characterization of structural completeness of a structural consequence operation,” Reports on Mathematical Logic, vol. 6 (1976), pp. 99–101.
  • [33] Maksimova, L., D. Skvorcov, and V. B. Shehtman, “Impossibility of finite axiomatization of Medvedev’s logic of finite problems,” Soviet Mathematics Doklady, vol. 20 (1979), pp. 394–98.
  • [34] Malinowski, J., Equivalence in Intensional Logics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Warsaw, 1989.
  • [35] Maltsev, A. I., “Several remarks on quasivarieties of algebraic systems,” Algebra i Logika, vol. 5 (1966), pp. 3–9.
  • [36] Maltsev, A. I., Algebraic Systems, vol. 192 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer, Berlin, 1973.
  • [37] Mares, E. D., and R. K. Meyer, “Relevant logics,” pp. 280–308 in The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, edited by L. Goble, Blackwell, Oxford, 2001.
  • [38] McKay, C. G., “The decidability of certain intermediate propositional logics,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 33 (1968), pp. 258–64.
  • [39] Meyer, R. K., “$R_{I}$—the bounds of finitude,” Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 16 (1970), pp. 385–7.
  • [40] Meyer, R. K., “Conservative extension in relevant implication,” Studia Logica, vol. 31 (1973), pp. 39–48.
  • [41] Meyer, R. K., “Improved decision procedures for pure relevant logic,” pp. 191–217 in Logic, Meaning and Computation, edited by C. A. Anderson and M. Zeleny, vol. 305 of Synthese Library, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001.
  • [42] Meyer, R. K., and J. M. Dunn, “E, R and $\gamma$,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 34 (1969), pp. 460–74.
  • [43] Meyer, R. K., J. M. Dunn, and H. Leblanc, “Completeness of relevant quantification theories,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 15 (1974), pp. 97–121.
  • [44] Meyer, R. K., and H. Ono, “The finite model property for $\mathrm{BCK}$ and $\mathrm{BCIW}$,” Studia Logica, vol. 53 (1994), pp. 107–18.
  • [45] Olson, J. S., and J. G. Raftery, “Positive Sugihara monoids,” Algebra Universalis, vol. 57 (2007), pp. 75–99.
  • [46] Olson, J. S., J. G. Raftery, and C. J. van Alten, “Structural completeness in substructural logics,” Logic Journal of the IGPL, vol. 16 (2008), pp. 455–95.
  • [47] Ono, H., “Proof-theoretic methods in nonclassical logic—an introduction,” pp. 207–54 in Theories of Types and Proofs (Tokyo, 1997), edited by M. Takahashi, M. Okada, and M. Dezani-Ciancaglini, vol. 2 of MSJ Memoirs, Mathematical Society of Japan, Tokyo, 1998.
  • [48] Pigozzi, D., “Abstract algebraic logic,” pp. 2–13 in Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, Supplement III, edited by M. Hazewinkel, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001.
  • [49] Pogorzelski, W. A., “Structural completeness of the propositional calculus,” Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences, Série des sciences mathématiques, astronomiques et physiques, vol. 19 (1971), pp. 349–51.
  • [50] Pogorzelski, W. A., and P. Wojtylak, Completeness Theory for Propositional Logics, Studies in Universal Logic, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2008.
  • [51] Prucnal, T., “On the structural completeness of some pure implicational propositional calculi,” Studia Logica, vol. 30 (1972), pp. 45–52.
  • [52] Prucnal, T., “Structural completeness of Medvedev’s propositional calculus,” Reports on Mathematical Logic, vol. 6 (1976), pp. 103–5.
  • [53] Prucnal, T., “Structural completeness of some fragments of intermediate logics,” Bulletin of the Section of Logic, vol. 12 (1983), pp. 41–4.
  • [54] Prucnal, T., “Structural completeness of purely implicational intermediate logics,” pp. 31–41 in Foundations of Logic and Linguistics (Salzburg, 1983), edited by G. Dorn and P. Weingartner, Plenum, New York, 1985.
  • [55] Prucnal, T., and A. Wroński, “An algebraic characterization of the notion of structural completeness,” Bulletin of the Section of Logic, vol. 3 (1974), pp. 30–3.
  • [56] Raftery, J. G., “Correspondences between Gentzen and Hilbert systems,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 71 (2006), pp. 903–57.
  • [57] Raftery, J. G., “The equational definability of truth predicates,” Reports on Mathematical Logic, vol. 41 (2006), pp. 95–149.
  • [58] Raftery, J. G., “A non-finitary sentential logic that is elementarily algebraizable,” Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 20 (2010), pp. 969–75.
  • [59] Raftery, J. G., “A perspective on the algebra of logic,” Quaestiones Mathematicae, vol. 34 (2011), pp. 275–325.
  • [60] Raftery, J. G., “Order algebraizable logics,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 164 (2013), pp. 251–83.
  • [61] Restall, G., “Relevant and substructural logics,” pp. 289–398 in Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Logic, edited by D. Gabbay and J. Woods, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
  • [62] Rybakov, V. V., Admissibility of Logical Inference Rules, vol. 136 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1997.
  • [63] Shoesmith, D. J., and T. J. Smiley, Multiple-Conclusion Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1978.
  • [64] Slaney, J. K., and R. K. Meyer, “A structurally complete fragment of relevant logic,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 33 (1992), pp. 561–6.
  • [65] Urquhart, A., “The complexity of decision procedures in relevance logic, II,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 64 (1999), pp. 1774–802.
  • [66] van Alten, C. J., and J. G. Raftery, “Rule separation and embedding theorems for logics without weakening,” Studia Logica, vol. 76 (2004), pp. 241–74.
  • [67] Wójcicki, R., “Matrix approach in methodology of sentential calculi,” Studia Logica, vol. 32 (1973), pp. 7–39.
  • [68] Wójcicki, R., Theory of Logical Calculi: Basic Theory of Consequence Operations, vol. 199 of Synthese Library, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1988.
  • [69] Wolter, F., and M. Zakharyaschev, “Undecidability of the unification and admissibility problems for modal and description logics,” ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, vol. 9 (2008), no. 4, art. ID rnm25.
  • [70] Wroński, A., “The degree of completeness of some fragments of the intuitionistic propositional logic,” Reports on Mathematical Logic, vol. 2 (1974), pp. 55–61.
  • [71] Wroński, A., “Reflections and distensions of BCK-algebras,” Mathematica Japonica, vol. 28 (1983), pp. 215–25.
  • [72] Wroński, A., “Overflow rules and a weakening of structural completeness,” pp. 67–71 in Rozważania o Filozofii Prawdziwej: Jerzemu Perzanowskiemu w Darze, edited by J. Sytnik-Czetwertyński, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków, 2009.