Skip to main content
Log in

A Family of Strict/Tolerant Logics

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

Abstract

Strict/tolerant logic, ST, evaluates the premises and the consequences of its consequence relation differently, with the premises held to stricter standards while consequences are treated more tolerantly. More specifically, ST is a three-valued logic with left sides of sequents understood as if in Kleene’s Strong Three Valued Logic, and right sides as if in Priest’s Logic of Paradox. Surprisingly, this hybrid validates the same sequents that classical logic does. A version of this result has been extended to meta, metameta, … consequence levels in Barrio et al. (2019). In my earlier paper Fitting (2019) I showed that the original ideas behind ST are, in fact, much more general than first appeared, and an infinite family of many valued logics have Strict/Tolerant counterparts. This family includes both Kleene’s and Priest’s logic individually, as well as first degree entailment. For instance, for both the Kleene and the Priest logic, the corresponding strict/tolerant logic is six-valued, but with differing sets of strictly and tolerantly designated truth values. The present paper extends that generalization in two directions. We examine a reverse notion, of Tolerant/Strict logics, which exist for the same structures that were investigated in Fitting (2019). And we show that the generalization extends through the meta, metameta, … consequence levels for the same infinite family of many valued logics. Finally we close with remarks on the status of cut and related rules, which can actually be rather nuanced. Throughout, the aim is not the philosophical applications of the Strict/Tolerant idea, but the determination of how general a phenomenon it is.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arieli, O., & Avron, A. (1996). Reasoning with logical bilattices. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 5.1, 25–63.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arieli, O., & Avron, A. (1998). The Value of Four Values. Artificial Intelligence, 102, 97–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Avron, A. (1996). The structure of interlaced bilattices. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 6.3, 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barrio, E.A., Pailos, F., & Szmuc, D.J. (2019). A Hierarchy of Classical and Paraconsistent Logics. In: Journal of Philosophical Logic. On Line https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09513-z.

  5. Barrio, E., Rosenblatt, L., & Tajer, D. (2015). The logics of strict-tolerant logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44.5, 551–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cobreros, P., & et al. (2012). Tolerant, classical, strict. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41.2, 347–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fitting, M.C. (1989). Bilattices and the theory of truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 18, 225–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fitting, M.C. (1991). Bilattices and the semantics of logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 11, 91–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fitting, M.C. (1997). A Theory of Truth that prefers falsehood. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 26, 477–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fitting, M.C. (2006). Bilattices are nice things. In Bolander, T., Hendricks, V., & Pederrsen, S.A. (Eds.) Self-Reference. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Chap. 3 (pp. 53–77).

  11. Fitting, M.C. (2019). The Strict/Tolerant idea and bilattices. To appear in Springer series on Outstanding Contributions to Logic, Arnon Avron.

  12. Ginsberg, M.L. (1988). Multivalued logics: a uniform approach to reasoning in artificial intelligence. Computational Intelligence, 4, 265–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ginsberg, M.L. (1990). Bilattices and modal operators. Journal of Logic and Computation, 1.1, 41–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ripley, D. (2013). Paradoxes and failures of cut. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91.1, 139–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Scambler, C. (2019). Classical logic and the strict tolerant hierarchy. In: Journal of Philosophical Logic. On Line https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09520-0.

  16. Scott, D.S. (1975). Completeness and axiomatizability in many-valued logic. In Henkin, L. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium (Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics), (Vol. 25 pp. 411–435): American Mathematical Society.

  17. Zardini, E. (2013). Naive modus ponens. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 42.4, 575–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melvin Fitting.

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

Fitting, M. A Family of Strict/Tolerant Logics. J Philos Logic 50, 363–394 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-020-09568-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-020-09568-3

Keywords

Navigation