Disappearing Diamonds: Fitch-Like Results in Bimodal Logic Abstract Augment the propositional language with two modal operators: □ and ■. Define \(\blacklozenge \) to be the dual of ■, i.e. \(\blacklozenge \equiv \neg \blacksquare \neg \). Whenever (X) is of the form φ → ψ, let (X\(^{\blacklozenge } \) ) be \(\varphi \rightarrow \blacklozenge \psi \). (X\(^{\blacklozenge } \) ) can be thought of as the modally qualified counterpart of (X)—for instance, under the metaphysical interpretation of \(\blacklozenge \), where (X) says φ implies ψ, (X\(^{\blacklozenge } \) ) says φ implies possiblyψ. This paper shows that for various interesting instances of (X), fairly weak assumptions suffice for (X\(^{\blacklozenge } \)) to imply (X)—so, the modally qualified principle is as strong as its unqualified counterpart. These results have surprising and interesting implications for issues spanning many areas of philosophy.

Algebraic Analysis of Demodalised Analytic Implication Abstract The logic DAI of demodalised analytic implication has been introduced by J.M. Dunn (and independently investigated by R.D. Epstein) as a variation on a time-honoured logical system by C.I. Lewis’ student W.T. Parry. The main tenet underlying this logic is that no implication can be valid unless its consequent is “analytically contained” in its antecedent. DAI has been investigated both proof-theoretically and model-theoretically, but no study so far has focussed on DAI from the viewpoint of abstract algebraic logic. We provide several different algebraic semantics for DAI, showing their equivalence with the known semantics by Dunn and Epstein. We also show that DAI is algebraisable and we identify its equivalent quasivariety semantics. This class turns out to be a linguistic and axiomatic expansion of involutive bisemilattices, a subquasivariety of which forms the algebraic counterpart of Paraconsistent Weak Kleene logic (PWK). This fact sheds further light on the relationship between containment logics and logics of nonsense.

Substitution Structures

Simplified Tableaux for STIT Imagination Logic Abstract We show how to correct the analytic tableaux system from the paper Olkhovikov and Wansing (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47(2), 259–279, 2018).

Intensional Protocols for Dynamic Epistemic Logic Abstract In dynamical multi-agent systems, agents are controlled by protocols. In choosing a class of formal protocols, an implicit choice is made concerning the types of agents, actions and dynamics representable. This paper investigates one such choice: An intensional protocol class for agent control in dynamic epistemic logic (DEL), called ‘DEL dynamical systems’. After illustrating how such protocols may be used in formalizing and analyzing information dynamics, the types of epistemic temporal models that they may generate are characterized. This facilitates a formal comparison with the only other formal protocol framework in dynamic epistemic logic, namely the extensional ‘DEL protocols’. The paper concludes with a conceptual comparison, highlighting modeling tasks where DEL dynamical systems are natural.

Negation on the Australian Plan Abstract We present and defend the Australian Plan semantics for negation. This is a comprehensive account, suitable for a variety of different logics. It is based on two ideas. The first is that negation is an exclusion-expressing device: we utter negations to express incompatibilities. The second is that, because incompatibility is modal, negation is a modal operator as well. It can, then, be modelled as a quantifier over points in frames, restricted by accessibility relations representing compatibilities and incompatibilities between such points. We defuse a number of objections to this Plan, raised by supporters of the American Plan for negation, in which negation is handled via a many-valued semantics. We show that the Australian Plan has substantial advantages over the American Plan.

Modal Expansionism Abstract There are various well-known paradoxes of modal recombination. This paper offers a solution to a variety of such paradoxes in the form of a new conception of metaphysical modality. On the proposed conception, metaphysical modality exhibits a type of indefinite extensibility. Indeed, for any objective modality there will always be some further, broader objective modality; in other terms, modal space will always be open to expansion.

Formalizing Kant’s Rules Abstract This paper formalizes part of the cognitive architecture that Kant develops in the Critique of Pure Reason. The central Kantian notion that we formalize is the rule. As we interpret Kant, a rule is not a declarative conditional stating what would be true if such and such conditions hold. Rather, a Kantian rule is a general procedure, represented by a conditional imperative or permissive, indicating which acts must or may be performed, given certain acts that are already being performed. These acts are not propositions; they do not have truth-values. Our formalization is related to the input/ output logics, a family of logics designed to capture relations between elements that need not have truth-values. In this paper, we introduce KL3 as a formalization of Kant’s conception of rules as conditional imperatives and permissives. We explain how it differs from standard input/output logics, geometric logic, and first-order logic, as well as how it translates natural language sentences not well captured by first-order logic. Finally, we show how the various distinctions in Kant’s much-maligned Table of Judgements emerge as the most natural way of dividing up the various types and sub-types of rule in KL3. Our analysis sheds new light on the way in which normative notions play a fundamental role in the conception of logic at the heart of Kant’s theoretical philosophy.

Correction to: Deflationism About Logic The original version of this article unfortunately contains mistakes introduced by the publisher during the production process. The mistakes and corrections are described in the following list

Deflationism About Logic Abstract Logical consequence is typically construed as a metalinguistic relation between (sets of) sentences. Deflationism is an account of logic that challenges this orthodoxy. In Williamson’s recent presentation of deflationism, logic’s primary concern is with universal generalizations over absolutely everything. As well as an interesting account of logic in its own right, deflationism has also been recruited to decide between competing logics in resolving semantic paradoxes. This paper defends deflationism from its most important challenge to date, due to Ole Hjortland. It then presents two new problems for the view. Hjortland’s objection is that deflationism cannot discriminate between distinct logics. I show that his example of classical logic and supervaluationism depends on equivocating about whether the language includes a “definitely” operator. Moreover, I prove a result that blocks this line of objection no matter the choice of logics. I end by criticizing deflationism on two fronts. First, it cannot do the work it has been recruited to perform. That is, it cannot help adjudicate between competing logics. This is because a theory of logic cannot be as easily separated from a theory of truth as its proponents claim. Second, deflationism currently has no adequate answer to the following challenge: what does a sentence’s universal generalization have to do with its logical truth? I argue that the most promising, stipulative response on behalf of the deflationist amounts to an unwarranted change of subject.