Abstract
In recent years, some theorists have argued that the clogics are not only defined by their inferences, but also by their metainferences. In this sense, logics that coincide in their inferences, but not in their metainferences were considered to be different. In this vein, some metainferential logics have been developed, as logics with metainferences of any level, built as hierarchies over known logics, such as \(\mathbf {ST}, \mathbf {LP}, \mathbf {K_3}\), and \(\mathbf {TS}\). What is distinctive of these metainferential logics is that they are mixed, i.e. the standard for the premises and the conclusion is not necessarily the same. However, so far, all of these systems have been presented following a semantical standpoint, in terms of valuations based on the Strong Kleene truth-tables. In this article, we provide sound and complete sequent-calculi for the valid inferences and the invalid inferences of the logics \(\mathbf {ST}, \mathbf {LP}, \mathbf {K_3}\) and \(\mathbf {TS}\), and introduce an algorithm that allows obtaining sound and complete sequent-calculi for the global validities and the global invalidities of any metainferential logic of any level.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barrio, E., F. Pailos, and D. Szmuc, A paraconsistent route to semantic closure, Logic Journal of the IGPL 25(4):387–407, 2017.
Barrio, E., F. Pailos, and D. Szmuc, Substructural logics, pluralism and collapse, Synthese, Online First (special issue: Pluralistic Perspectives on Logic), 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01963-3.
Barrio, E., F. Pailos, and D. Szmuc, What is a paraconsistent logic?, in W. Carnielli, and J. Malinowski, (eds.), Contradictions, from consistency to inconsistency, vol. 47 of Trends in Logic, Springer, 2018, pp. 89–108.
Barrio, E.A., F. Pailos, and D. Szmuc, A hierarchy of classical and paraconsistent logics, Journal of Philosophical Logic 49(1):93–120, 2020.
Beall, J., Multiple-conclusion LP and default classicality, The Review of Symbolic Logic 4(2):326–336, 2011.
Beall, J., LP+, K3+, FDE+, and their ‘classical collapse’, The Review of Symbolic Logic 6(4):742–754, 2013.
Bonatti, P.A., and N. Olivetti, Sequent calculi for propositional nonmonotonic logics, ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL) 3(2):226–278, 2002.
Carnielli, W.A., and G. Pulcini, Cut-elimination and deductive polarization in complementary classical logic, Logic Journal of the IGPL 25(3):273–282, 2017.
Chemla, E., P. Égré, and B. Spector, Characterizing logical consequence in many-valued logic, Journal of Logic and Computation. 27(7):2193–2226, 2017.
Cobreros, P., P. Egré, D. Ripley, and R. van Rooij, Tolerant, classical, strict. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41(2):347–385, 2012.
Cobreros, P., P. Egré, D. Ripley, and R. Van Rooij, Reaching transparent truth, Mind 122(488):841–866, 2014.
Cobreros, P., L. Tranchini, and E. La Rosa, (I Can’t GetNo) Antisatisfaction, Synthese, Online First, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02570-x.
Cobreros, P., L. Tranchini, and E. La Rosa, Higher-level Inferences in the Strong-Kleene Setting, manuscript, 2021.
Dicher, B., and F. Paoli, ST, LP and tolerant metainferences, in C. Baskent, and T. Macaulay Ferguson, Graham Priest on dialetheism and paraconsistency, vol. 18 of Outstanding Contributions to Logic, Springer, 2019, pp. 383–407.
Fjellstad, A., Non-classical elegance for sequent calculus enthusiasts, Studia Logica 105(1):93–119, 2017.
Frankowski, S., Formalization of a plausible inference, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 33:41–52, 2004.
French, R., Structural reflexivity and the paradoxes of self-reference, Ergo 3(5):113–131, 2016.
Girard, J.-Y., Proof theory and logical complexity, Bibliopolis, Napoli, 1987.
Goranko, V., Refutation systems in modal logic, Studia Logica 53(2):299–324, 1994.
Humberstone, L., Valuational Semantics of Rule Derivability, Journal of Philosophical Logic 25:451–461, 1996.
Malinowski, G., Q-consequence operation, Reports on Mathematical Logic 24(1):49–59, 1990.
Meyer, R.K., and M. A. McRobbie, Multisets and relevant implication i, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60(2):107–139, 1982.
Meyer, R.K., and M. A. McRobbie, Multisets and relevant implication ii, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60(3):265–281, 1982.
Negri, S., J. Von Plato, and A. Ranta, Structural proof theory, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Pailos, F. M., A family of metainferential logics, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 29(1):97–120, 2019.
Pailos, F. M., A fully classical truth theory characterized by substructural means, The Review of Symbolic Logic 13(2):249–268, 2020.
Přenosil, A., Cut elimination, Identity Elimination, and Interpolation in Super-Belnap Logics, Studia Logica 105(6):1255–1289, 2017.
Ripley, D., A toolkit for metainferential logics, presentation on the IX Workshop on Philosophical Logic-SADAF, 2020; http://davewripley.rocks/docs/atmi-slides.pdf.
Ripley, D., Conservatively extending classical logic with transparent truth, The Review of Symbolic Logic 5(02):354–378, 2012.
Rosenblatt, L., Towards a non-classical meta-theory for substructural approaches to paradox, Journal of Philosophical Logic, Online First, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-020-09589-y.
Shapiro, L., LP, K3, and FDE as Substructural Logics, in P. Arazim, and T. Lavicka, (eds.), Logica Yearbook 2016, London College Publications, 2016, pp. 1–16.
Shramko, Y., and H. Wansing, Truth and falsehood: An inquiry into generalized logical values, Springer Science & Business Media, Dodrecht, 2011.
Takeuti, G., Proof Theory: Second Edition, Elsevier Science, Studies in Logic 81, Amsterdam, 1987.
Teijeiro, P., Strenght and stability, Análisis Filosófico, forthcoming, 2019.
Tiomkin, M., Proving unprovability, technical report no. cs0478, Computer Science Department, Technion, 1987; http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/users/wwwb/cgi-bin/tr-info.cgi/1987/CS/CS0478
Wintein, S., On all strong kleene generalizations of classical logic, Studia Logica 104(3):503–545, 2016.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers of this journal for their comments and suggestions which improved the content of the article. Also, we would like to thank the audience of the Workshop on Substructural Logics and Metainferences (Buenos Aires, 2020). Our thanks also go to the members of the Buenos Aires Logic Group, especially to Lucas Rosenblatt for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This paper could not have been written without the financial aid of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET). While writing this paper, Federico Pailos enjoyed a Humboldt Research Fellowship for experienced researchers (March 2020 to July 2021).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Presented by Heinrich Wansing
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Da Ré, B., Pailos, F. Sequent-Calculi for Metainferential Logics. Stud Logica 110, 319–353 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-021-09967-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-021-09967-w