Skip to main content
Log in

Idempotent Variations on the Theme of Exclusive Disjunction

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An exclusive disjunction is true when exactly one of the disjuncts is true. In the case of the familiar binary exclusive disjunction, we have a formula occurring as the first disjunct and a formula occurring as the second disjunct, so, if what we have is two formula-tokens of the same formula-type—one formula occurring twice over, that is—the question arises as to whether, when that formula is true, to count the case as one in which exactly one of the disjuncts is true, counting by type, or as a case in which two disjuncts are true, counting by token. The latter is the standard answer: counting by tokens. James McCawley once suggested that, when the exclusively disjunctive construction in natural language (well, in English at least) is at issue, the construction should be treated as involving a multigrade connective whose semantic treatment is sensitive to the set of disjuncts rather than the corresponding multiset. Without any commitment as to whether there actually is such a construction (in English), and conceding that for obvious pragmatic reasons such ‘repeated disjunct’ cases would be at best highly marginal, we note that for the binary case, this requires a nonstandard answer—count by type rather than by token—to the earlier question, and thus, an idempotent exclusive disjunction connective. Section 2 explores that idea and Section 3, a further idempotent variant for which it is the propositions expressed by the disjuncts, rather than the disjuncts themselves, that get counted once only in the case of repetitions. Sections 1 and 4 respectively set the stage for these investigations and conclude the discussion (after noting an intimate connection between the logic of Section 3 and the modal logic S5). More detailed considerations of points arising from the discussion but otherwise in danger of interrupting the flow are deferred to a ‘Longer Notes’ appendix at the end (Section 5.)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aloni, M., Disjunction, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/disjunction/.

  2. Alonso-Ovalle, L., Innocent Exclusion in Alternative Semantics, Natural Language Semantics 16:115–128, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Borowski, E. J., English and Truth-Functions, Analysis 36:96–100, 1976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bunder, M.W., A Foundation of Multiset Theory Based on BCK-Predicate Logic (Abstract), Journal of Symbolic Logic 53:1284, 1988.

  5. Bunder M. W., and N. C. A. da Costa, On BCK Logic and Set Theory, Preprint No. 4/86, Department of Mathematics, University of Wollongong, 1986.

  6. Champlin, T. S., A Curious Plural, Philosophy 68:435–455, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ciardelli, I., Questions in Logic, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC Dissertation Series), Amsterdam, 2016.

  8. Ciardelli, I., J. Groenendijk, and F. Roelofsen, Inquisitive Semantics, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2019.

  9. Clark, D. M., Diassociative groupoids are not finitely based, Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society 11:113–114, 1970.

  10. Courant, R., and H. Robbins, What is Mathematics? An Elementary Approach to Ideas and Methods, 4th edn., Oxford University Press, New York, 1947.

  11. Davidson, D., and G. Harman, (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fine, K., Angellic Content, Journal of Philosophical Logic 45:199–226, 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. French, R., A Simple Sequent Calculus for Angell’s Logic of Analytic Containment, Studia Logica 105:971–994, 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gazdar, G., and G.K.Pullum, Truth-functional Connectives in Natural Language, in S. S. Mufwene, C. A. Walker and S. B. Steever, (eds.), Papers from the 12th Regional Meeting, CLS, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, 1975, pp. 220–234.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Girle, R., “And/or” or “Or but not both” or both, History and Philosophy of Logic 10:39–45, 1989.

  16. Goldblatt, R., Topoi: The Categorial Analysis of Logic, rev. edn., North-Holland, Amsterdam 1984.

  17. Hendry, H. E., and G. J. Massey, On the Concepts of Sheffer Functions, in K. Lambert, (ed.), The Logical Way of Doing Things, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1969, pp. 279–293.

  18. Humberstone, L., Review of Davidson and Harman [11], York Papers in Linguistics 5:195–224, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Humberstone, L., Classes of Valuations Closed Under Operations Galois-Dual to Boolean Sentence Connectives, Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University 32:9–84, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Humberstone, L., False Though Partly True – An Experiment in Logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic 32:613–665, 2003.

  21. Humberstone, L., Identical Twins, Deduction Theorems, and Pattern Functions: Exploring the Implicative BCSK Fragment of S5, Journal of Philosophical Logic 35:435–487, 2006.

  22. Humberstone, L., The Connectives, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Humberstone, L., Aggregation and Idempotence, Review of Symbolic Logic 6:680–708, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Humberstone, L., Philosophical Applications of Modal Logic, College Publications, London, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Humberstone, L., Supervenience, Dependence, Disjunction, Logic and Logical Philosophy 28:3–135, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Humberstone, L., Twins in Logic – Identical and Otherwise, Journal of Applied Logics (IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications) 7:1071–1114, 2020.

  27. Humberstone, L., Propositional Variables Occurring Exactly Once in Candidate Modal Axioms, Filosofiska Notiser 8: 27–73, 2021.

  28. Jennings, R. E., The Genealogy of Disjunction, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Loday, J.-L., Dialgebras, in J.-L. Loday, F. Chapoton, A. Frabetti, and F. Goichot, Dialgebras and Related Operads, Springer, Berlin, 2001, pp. 7–66.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Marcos, J., Logics of Essence and Accident, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 34:43–56, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  31. McCarthy, J., Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common-Sense Knowledge, Artificial Intelligence 28:89–116,1986.

  32. McCarthy, J. D., A Program for Logic, in D. Davidson, and G. Harman, (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht 1972, pp. 498–544.

    Google Scholar 

  33. McCarthy, J. D., Everything that Linguists have AlwaysWanted to Know about Logic—But were ashamed to ask, 2nd edn., University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1993.

  34. McKee, T. A., Generalized Equivalence and the Foundations of Quasigroups, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 21: 135–140, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  35. McKee, T. A., Generalized Equivalence: A Pattern of Mathematical Expression, Studia Logica 44:285–289, 1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McKinsey, J. C. C., On the Syntactical Construction of Systems of Modal Logic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 10: 83–94, 1945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Meyer, R. K., and M. A. McRobbie, Multisets and relevant Implication: I, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60:107–139, 1982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Monro, G. P., The Concept of Multiset, Zeitschr. für math. Logik und Grundlagen der Math. 33:171–178, 1987.

  39. Nagayama, M., On a Property of BCK-Identities, Studia Logica 53: 227–234, 1994.

  40. Pelletier, F. J., and A. Hartline, Ternary Exclusive Or, Logic Journal of the IGPL 16:75–83, 2007.

  41. Post, E. L., The Two-Valued Iterative Systems of Mathematical Logic, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1941.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Prawitz D., Natural Deduction, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Prawitz, D., and P.-E. Malmnäs, A Survey of Some Connections Between Classical, Intuitionistic, and Minimal Logic, in H. A. Schmidt, K. Schütte, and H.-J. Thiele, (eds.), Contributions to Mathematical Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1968, pp. 215–229.

  44. Quine, W. V., From a Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Quine, W. V., Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes, Journal of Philosophy 53:177–187, 1956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Reichenbach, H., Elements of Symbolic Logic, Macmillan, London, 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Restall, G., and S. Standefer, Collection Frames for Substructural Logics, awaiting publication; earlier version (same title) presented by Restall at the LanCog Workshop on Substructural Logics, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa, Libson, Portugal September 26–27, 2019.

  48. Richards, T. J., “Or” and/or “And/Or”, History and Philosophy of Logic 10:29–38, 1989.

  49. Ripley, D., Contraction and Closure, Thought 4:131–138, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. van Rooij, R., and K. Schulz, Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13:491–519, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Simons, M., Issues in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Disjunction, Garland Publishing, New York, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Singh, D., A. M. Ibrahim, T. Yohanna, and J. N. Singh, A Systematization of [the] Fundamentals of Multisets, Lecturas Matemáticas 29:33–48, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Taylor, W., Equational Logic, Houston Journal of Mathematics 5(Suppl): 1–83, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Troelstra, A. S., and D.van Dalen, Constructivism in Mathematics: An Introduction, Vols. I and II, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.

  55. Urquhart, A., Semantics for Relevant Logics, Journal of Symbolic Logic 37:159–169, 1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wetzel, L., What are Occurrences of Expressions? Journal of Philosophical Logic 22:215–220, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wetzel, L., Types and Tokens: On Abstract Objects, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Williamson, T., Indicative versus Subjunctive Conditionals, Congruential versus Non-Hyperintensional Contexts, Philosophical Issues 16: 310–333, 2006.

  59. Wójcicki, R., Theory of Logical Calculi, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1988.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Yablo, S., Aboutness, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2014.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Bryn Humberstone for assistance on Figure 1, for the ‘Fundamental Theorem of Algebra’ example in Longer Note 6, and for comments leading to considerable reformulation elsewhere, as well as to two anonymous Studia Logica referees for numerous corrections and improvements.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Humberstone.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Humberstone, L. Idempotent Variations on the Theme of Exclusive Disjunction. Stud Logica 110, 121–163 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-021-09954-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-021-09954-1

Keywords

Navigation