Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Derivability and Metainferential Validity

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this article is to study the notion of derivability and its semantic counterpart in the context of non-transitive and non-reflexive substructural logics. For this purpose we focus on the study cases of the logics ST and TS. In this respect, we show that this notion doesn’t coincide, in general, with a nowadays broadly used semantic approach towards metainferential validity: the notion of local validity. Following this, and building on some previous work by Humberstone, we prove that in these systems derivability can be characterized in terms of a notion we call absolute global validity. However, arriving at these results doesn’t lead us to disregard local validity. First, because we discuss the conditions under which local, and also global validity, can be expected to coincide with derivability. Secondly, because we show how taking into account certain families of valuations can be useful to describe derivability for different calculi used to present ST and TS.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barrio, E., Pailos, F., & Szmuc, D. (2018). Between consistency and inconsistency, trends in logic. In W. Carnielli J. Malinowski (Eds.) (pp. 89–108). Dordrecht: Springer.

  2. Barrio, E., Rosenblatt, L., & Tajer, D. (2015). The logics of strict-tolerant logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44(5), 551–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrio, E.A., Pailos, F., & Szmuc, D. (2020). A hierarchy of classical and paraconsistent logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 49(1), 93–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cobreros, P., Égré, P., Ripley, D., & van Rooij, R. (2012). Tolerance and mixed consequence in the s’valuationist setting. Studia Logica, 100(4), 855–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cobreros, P., Égré, P., Ripley, D., & van Rooij, R. (2012). Tolerant, classical, strict. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(2), 347–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cobreros, P., Égré, P., Ripley, D., & van Rooij, R. (2014). Priest’s motorbike and tolerant identity. In R. Ciuni, H. Wansing, & C. Wilkommen (Eds.) Recent trends in philosophical logic (pp. 75–85). Cham: Springer.

  7. Cobreros, P., Égré, P., Ripley, D., & van Rooij, R. (2014). Reaching transparent truth. Mind, 122(488), 841–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cobreros, P., La Rosa, E., & Tranchini, L. (2020). (I can’t get no) Antisatisfaction. Synthese. Forthcoming.

  9. Da Ré, B., Pailos, F., Szmuc, D., & Teijeiro, P. (2020). Metainferential duality. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 30(4), 312–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dicher, B., & Paoli, F. (2019). ST, LP, and tolerant metainferences. In C. Baṡkent T. M. Ferguson (Eds.) Graham priest on dialetheism and paraconsistency (pp. 383–407). Dordrecht: Springer.

  11. Frankowski, S. (2004). Formalization of a plausible inference. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 33(1), 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  12. French, R. (2016). Structural reflexivity and the paradoxes of self-reference. Ergo, 3(5), 113–131.

    Google Scholar 

  13. French, R., & Ripley, D. (2019). Valuations: Bi, Tri, and Tetra. Studia Logica, 107, 1313–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Girard, J. (1991). Proof theory and logical complexity. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 53(4), 197.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Girard, J.-Y. (1976). Three valued logics and cut-elimination: the actual meaning of Takeuti’s conjecture. Dissertationes Mathematicae, 136, 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hardegree, G.M. (2005). Completeness and super-valuations. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34(1), 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hösli, B., & Jäger, G. (1994). About some symmetries of negation. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 59(2), 473–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Humberstone, L. (1996). Valuational semantics of rule derivability. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25(5), 451–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Humberstone, L. (2011). The connectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Lahav, O. (2013). Studying sequent systems via non-deterministic multiple-valued matrices. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing, 21 (5/6), 575–595.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Malinowski, G. (1990). Q-consequence operation. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 24(1), 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Priest, G. (1979). The logic of paradox. Journal of Philosophical logic, 8(1), 219–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pynko, A. (2010). Gentzen’s cut-free calculus versus the logic of paradox. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 39(1/2), 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ripley, D. Uncut. Unpublished Manuscript.

  25. Ripley, D. (2012). Conservatively extending classical logic with transparent truth. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(02), 354–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ripley, D. (2013). Paradoxes and failures of cut. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91(1), 139–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ripley, D. (2013). Revising up: strengthening Classical Logic in the face of paradox. Philosophers’ Imprint, 13(5), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ripley, D. (2017). On the ‘transitivity’of consequence relations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 28(2), 433–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Scambler, C. (2020). Classical logic and the strict tolerant hierarchy. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(49), 351–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Teijeiro, P. (2019). Strenght and Stability. Análisis Filosófico. Forthcoming.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions which improved the clarity and 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. This paper could not have been written without the financial aid of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Buenos Aires, Puan 480, C1420, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Bruno Da Ré, Damian Szmuc & Paula Teijeiro

  2. IIF-SADAF, National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Bulnes 642, C1176ABL, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Bruno Da Ré, Damian Szmuc & Paula Teijeiro

Authors
  1. Bruno Da Ré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Damian Szmuc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paula Teijeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno Da Ré.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Da Ré, B., Szmuc, D. & Teijeiro, P. Derivability and Metainferential Validity. J Philos Logic 51, 1521–1547 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-021-09619-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-021-09619-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation