Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Dunn–Priest Quotients of Many-Valued Structures

Thomas Macaulay Ferguson

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


J. Michael Dunn’s Theorem in 3-Valued Model Theory and Graham Priest’s Collapsing Lemma provide the means of constructing first-order, three-valued structures from classical models while preserving some control over the theories of the ensuing models. The present article introduces a general construction that we call a Dunn–Priest quotient, providing a more general means of constructing models for arbitrary many-valued, first-order logical systems from models of any second system. This technique not only counts Dunn’s and Priest’s techniques as special cases, but also provides a generalized Collapsing Lemma for Priest’s more recent plurivalent semantics in general. We examine when and how much control may be exerted over the resulting theories in particular cases. Finally, we expand the utility of the construction by showing that taking Dunn–Priest quotients of a family of structures commutes with taking an ultraproduct of that family, increasing the versatility of the tool.

Article information

Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, Volume 58, Number 2 (2017), 221-239.

Received: 25 April 2014
Accepted: 30 July 2014
First available in Project Euclid: 21 February 2017

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)

Zentralblatt MATH identifier

Primary: 03C90: Nonclassical models (Boolean-valued, sheaf, etc.)
Secondary: 03C20: Ultraproducts and related constructions

many-valued logic model theory Dunn–Priest techniques


Ferguson, Thomas Macaulay. Dunn–Priest Quotients of Many-Valued Structures. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 58 (2017), no. 2, 221--239. doi:10.1215/00294527-3838853.

Export citation


  • [1] Belnap, N. D., Jr., “How a computer should think,” pp. 30–56 in Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, edited by G. Ryle, Oriel Press, Stocksfield, 1977.
  • [2] Bochvar, D. A., “On a three-valued logical calculus and its application to the analysis of contradictions,” Matematicheskii Sbornik, vol. 4 (1938), pp. 287–308.
  • [3] Bochvar, D. A., “On a three-valued logical calculus and its application to the analysis of the paradoxes of the classical extended functional calculus,” History and Philosophy of Logic, vol. 2 (1981), pp. 87–112.
  • [4] Carnielli, W. A., “Systematization of finite many-valued logics through the method of tableaux,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 52 (1987), pp. 473–93.
  • [5] Deutsch, H., “Relevant analytic entailment,” Relevance Logic Newsletter, vol. 2 (1977), pp. 26–44.
  • [6] Dunn, J. M., “A theorem in 3-valued model theory with connections to number theory, type theory, and relevant logic,” Studia Logica, vol. 38 (1979), pp. 149–69.
  • [7] Ferguson, T. M., “Notes on the model theory of DeMorgan logics,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 53 (2012), pp. 113–32.
  • [8] Ferguson, T. M., “On non-deterministic quantification,” Logica Universalis, vol. 8 (2014), pp. 165–91.
  • [9] Humberstone, L., “Power matrices and Dunn-Belnap semantics: Reflections on a remark of Graham Priest,” Australasian Journal of Logic, vol. 11 (2014), pp. 14–45.
  • [10] Kleene, S. C., Introduction to Metamathematics, D. Van Nostrand, New York, 1952.
  • [11] Oller, C. A., “Paraconsistency and analyticity,” pp. 91–99 in Parainconsistency, Part I (Torún, 1998), vol. 7 of Logic and Logical Philosophy, 1999.
  • [12] Priest, G., “The logic of paradox,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8 (1979), pp. 219–41.
  • [13] Priest, G., “Minimally inconsistent $\mathsf{LP}$,” Studia Logica, vol. 50 (1991), pp. 321–31.
  • [14] Priest, G., “Is arithmetic consistent?” Mind, vol. 103 (1994), pp. 337–49.
  • [15] Priest, G., “Inconsistent models of arithmetic, I: Finite models,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 26 (1997), pp. 223–35.
  • [16] Priest, G., “Inconsistent models of arithmetic, II: The general case,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 65 (2000), pp. 1519–29.
  • [17] Priest, G., “Plurivalent logics,” Australasian Journal of Logic, vol. 11 (2014), pp. 2–13.
  • [18] Shramko, Y., and H. Wansing, “Some useful 16-valued logics: How a computer network should think,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 35 (2005), pp. 121–53.