×

Humble connexivity. (English) Zbl 1458.03014

Summary: In this paper, I review the motivation of connexive and strongly connexive logics, and I investigate the question why it is so hard to achieve those properties in a logic with a well motivated semantic theory. My answer is that strong connexivity, and even just weak connexivity, is too stringent a requirement. I introduce the notion of humble connexivity, which in essence is the idea to restrict the connexive requirements to possible antecedents. I show that this restriction can be well motivated, while it still leaves us with a set of requirements that are far from trivial. In fact, formalizing the idea of humble connexivity is not as straightforward as one might expect, and I offer three different proposals. I examine some well known logics to determine whether they are humbly connexive or not, and I end with a more wide-focused view on the logical landscape seen through the lens of humble connexivity.

MSC:

03B45 Modal logic (including the logic of norms)
03B53 Paraconsistent logics
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Carnap, R., Meaning and Necessity, Chicago University Press, 1947 · Zbl 0034.00106
[2] Estrada-González, L. and E. Ramírez-Cámara. “A comparison of connexive logics”, IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications 3, 3 (2016): 341-355
[3] Kapsner, A., “Strong connexivity”, Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 1, 2 (2012): 141-145. DOI:
[4] Kapsner, A., Logics and Falsifications, vol. 40 of Trends in Logic, Springer, 2014. DOI: · Zbl 1436.03004
[5] Kapsner, A., and H. Omori, “Counterfactuals in Nelson logic”, chapter 34 in International Workshop on Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, Springer, 2017. DOI: · Zbl 1495.03042
[6] Leahy, B., “Presuppositions and antipresuppositions in conditionals”, pages 257-274 in Proceedings of SALT 21, Springer, 2011. DOI:
[7] Lewis, D.K., Counterfactuals, Blackwell, 1973
[8] Makinson, D., “How meaningful are modal operators?”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 44, 3 (1966): 331-337
[9] McCall, S., “Connexive implication”, in A.R. Anderson and N.D. Belnap (eds.), Entailment. The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Volume 1, Princeton University Press, 1975 · Zbl 0323.02030
[10] Omori, H., and K. Sano, “Generalizing functional completeness in Belnap-Dunn Logic”, Studia Logica 103, 5 (2015). DOI: · Zbl 1376.03024
[11] Priest. G., “Negation as cancellation and connexive logic”, Topoi, 18, 2 (1999): 141-148. DOI: · Zbl 0946.03011
[12] Routley, R., “Semantics for connexive logics. I”, Studia Logica 37, 4 (1978): 393-412. DOI: · Zbl 0405.03009
[13] Routley, R., R.K. Meyer, V. Plumwood, and R.T. Brady, Relevant Logics and Their Rivals: Part 1. The Basic Philosophical and Semantical Theory, 1982 · Zbl 0579.03011
[14] Stalnaker, R.C., “A theory of conditionals”, pages 41-55 in Ifs, Springer, 1968
[15] Vidal, M., “When conditional logic met connexive logic”, in C. Gardent and C. Retoré (eds.), IWCS 2017 - 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics
[16] Wansing, H., “Connexive modal logic”, pages 367-383 in R. Schmidt, I. Pratt-Hartmann, M. Reynolds, and H. Wansing (eds.), Advances in Modal Logic. Volume 5, King’s College Publications, 2005 · Zbl 1107.03017
[17] Wansing, H., “Connexive logic”, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2014 edition, 2014. Available at · Zbl 1107.03017
[18] Wansing, H., H. Omori, and T.M. Ferguson, “The tenacity of connexive logic: Preface to the special issue”, IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications (2016): 279
[19] Wansing, H., and D. Skurt, “Negation as cancellation, connexive logic, and qLPm”, Australasian Journal of Logic 15, 2 (2018): 476-488. DOI: · Zbl 1455.03033
[20] Williamson,
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.