Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Kamide is in America, Moisil and Leitgeb are in Australia

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that QBDi3, the explosive first-order extension of the intuitionistic paraconsistent logic BDi, is sound and complete for a Kripke semantics whose implication-falsity condition enforces potential omniscience.

desk verdict Genuinely useful first-order extension of BD+ work, with a completeness proof that survives the stress-test objection. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00495 v1 pith:3C2RSUD5 submitted 2024-12-31 cs.LO

Satoru Niki (Department of Philosophy I , Ruhr University Bochum , Bochum , Germany) , Hitoshi Omori (Graduate School of Information Sciences , Tohoku University , Sendai , Japan) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LO MSC 03B2003B5303B5503B60
keywords Belnap-DunnlogicBooleannegationintuitionisticparaconsistentstrongKripkesemanticsdoubleshiftpotentialomniscience
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper explains why a single four-valued logic, Belnap-Dunn logic expanded with Boolean negation (BD+), splits into two different intuitionistic logics, the system BDi and the system HYPE, once the base setting moves from classical to intuitionistic logic. To make the split perspicuous, it formulates a two-state 'star' semantics for first-order BD+ and shows that BD+ is obtained from HYPE by collapsing the constructive order. Its main technical result is that the first-order explosive extension QBDi3 is sound and complete for a Kripke-style semantics with monotone extensions and anti-extensions, maximal successors, and potential omniscience. The completeness theorem matters because it shows that the falsity condition for implication in this semantics forces the double negation shift and potential omniscience, and because QBDi3 nevertheless retains the disjunction property, the existence property, and constructible falsity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a reduction $f$ (Definition 17) that rewrites every formula by pushing the strong negation $\sim$ inward through quantifiers and connectives until it applies only to prime formulas. A reduced formula is then translated into the intermediate logic MH by replacing each $\sim P$ with a fresh predicate $P'$ and adding the axioms $\forall\vec{x}(P'\to\neg P)$ and $\forall\vec{x}\neg\neg(P'\vee P)$; Proposition 21 says QBDi3 derivability of a reduced formula is equivalent to MH derivability of the translated formula from the translated theory plus those axioms. The completeness proof builds a QBDi3-model out of an MH-model supplied by strong completeness of MH. On the semantic side, the QBDi3-model itself is the central object, with its monotone extension and anti-extension sets, maximal successors, and potential omniscience.

What would settle it

Find a QBDi3-model with maximal successors, monotone extensions and anti-extensions, and potential omniscience that fails one of the axioms (i1), (i2), or (i3) at some state; that would refute soundness. Alternatively, exhibit a reduced set $\Gamma\cup\{A\}$ such that the translated theory $f(\Gamma)'\cup E_{f(\Gamma\cup\{A\})}$ is MH-derivable for $f(A)'$ while $\Gamma\not\vdash_{\mathrm{i3}} A$, which would refute Proposition 21 and with it the completeness argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 2, is that for all sets of sentences $\Gamma\cup\{A\}$, $\Gamma \vdash_{\mathrm{i3}} A$ if and only if $\Gamma \models_{\mathrm{i3}} A$, where the semantic consequence is taken over the class of QBDi3-models. In those models, each world has a maximal successor, extensions and anti-extensions of predicates are monotone, and every atomic sentence is eventually settled along every branch, an assumption called potential omniscience. The paper also proves that the star semantics for first-order BD+ is sound and complete, making explicit that BDi and HYPE are the American-plan and Australian-plan intuitionistic counterparts of BD+, and that the propositional extension of BDi3 by the linearity axiom (AxG) is characterized by a four-valued truth table.

Load-bearing premise

The completeness proof leans on the strong completeness of the intermediate logic MH for an extended language with fresh predicates and possibly infinite theories, an external theorem that is cited, not proved here, and whose failure would collapse the model-existence step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every QBDi3-valid sequent is provable, so the axiomatic system captures exactly the intended Kripke semantics.
  • Making BDi explosive forces potential omniscience and the double negation shift; equivalently, the falsity condition for implication in the semantics commits the logic to these principles.
  • The star semantics for first-order BD+ gives a common vantage point from which BDi and HYPE are visible as two distinct constructivisations of the same classical four-valued logic.
  • QBDi3 has the disjunction property, the existence property, and constructible falsity despite containing the double negation shift.
  • The four-valued truth tables for the propositional extension BDi3+(AxG) provide a finite-valued description of that extension.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One testable extension is to vary the falsity clause for implication in the BDi semantics while leaving the rest untouched, and check which axioms become valid; the paper's results suggest that potential omniscience and the double negation shift are sensitive to exactly that clause.
  • The completeness proof routes through MH, so proof-theoretic properties of MH such as cut elimination or interpolation may transfer to QBDi3 through the reduction, a connection the paper does not explore.
  • The finite-valued description of BDi3+(AxG) suggests a systematic search for other finite-frame extensions of QBDi3 whose semantics collapse to finite matrices.
  • If the external completeness of MH were ever questioned, a canonical-model proof for QBDi3 built directly from its own semantics would make the result self-contained; the reduction does not provide that by itself.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the relation between two intuitionistic counterparts of the logic BD+ (Belnap-Dunn logic with Boolean negation): Kamide's BDi (the "American" plan) and HYPE (the "Australian" plan). It provides a new star semantics for first-order BD+, introduces an explosive predicate logic QBDi3 obtained from BDi by adding the ex contradictione and potential omniscience, and proves a soundness and completeness theorem for QBDi3 by reducing it to the intermediate logic MH (intuitionistic logic with the double negation shift). The authors also establish constructive properties (disjunction, existence, and constructible falsity), study a propositional extension for which they give four-valued truth tables, and compare related systems QBDi, QDN3, QDN4, and a connexive variant.

Significance. If the central completeness theorem is correct, the paper offers a useful bridge between the American and Australian semantic traditions for BD+, and the reduction of QBDi3 to MH is an interesting technical result. The paper is clearly written and contains several valuable observations, such as the star semantics for QBD+ and the four-valued characterization of BDi3+(AxG). The constructive properties for QBDi3 are also a nice addition. However, the paper's main theorem relies on an external strong-completeness result for MH whose match to the semantics defined in Remark 9 is not verified, so the significance is conditional on closing that gap.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 2, Section 3.3] The completeness proof of Theorem 2 depends on the 'strong completeness for MH' cited as [3,12] for the class of MH models introduced in Remark 9. Remark 9 defines MH models by restricting QBDi3-models, so they inherit the maximal-successor frame condition and the monotone increasing domains of Definition 8. It is not stated whether [3,12] proves strong completeness for exactly this class; if the cited result concerns a different semantics (e.g., without the maximal-successor condition, or with constant domains), the model produced by the completeness step need not satisfy Definition 8's frame requirements, and the constructed QBDi3 model in Theorem 2 may be ill-defined. The authors should either supply a precise statement of the MH completeness theorem that matches Remark 9, or replace the appeal by a direct model-existence construction for the infinite theory f(Γ)' ∪ E_{f(Γ∪{A})}.
  2. [Proposition 20, Section 3.3] Proposition 20, which is essential for the reduction used in Theorem 2, is only partially proved: the cases for implication and universal quantification are sketched, and the existential case is omitted. Since the derivation in the universal case uses the double negation shift (i1) inside a reduced proof and involves a non-trivial chain of intuitionistic equivalences, the sketch is not enough to verify without reworking the entire argument. Please expand the proof or provide a fully formal derivation for all cases.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Definition 8] In the atomic clauses of Definition 8, the occurrences of V+(x,P) and V−(x,P) should read V+(w,P) and V−(w,P).
  2. [Theorem 2 proof] In the proof of Theorem 2, after '1 ∉ I(w, f(A)′)' the text says 'for some x∈W'; the variable is inconsistent and should be 'for that w'.
  3. [Proposition 6] The completeness direction of Proposition 6 is left to the reader; although the induction is straightforward, the two-state model construction deserves a brief verification of the star condition and the stated equivalences.
  4. [Remark 9] Remark 9's phrase 'additional predicates P′, Q′, etc.' should clarify that for each n-ary predicate P there is a corresponding predicate P′ of the same arity.
  5. [Theorem 5 proof] In the proof of Theorem 5, the notation I(x,A) = {1} suggests a set of truth values; the intended reading is a single value, and this should be adjusted to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QBDi3 completeness is proved by reduction to the external strong completeness of MH, not by assuming its own target.

full rationale

The derivation chain for Theorem 2 is a translation argument: QBDi3 derivability is reduced (Proposition 21) to derivability in MH in an expanded language with auxiliary predicates P', and model existence is then imported from the strong completeness of MH cited to [3,12]. Neither of these citations is to the present authors, and the MH completeness result is stated as an external background theorem rather than derived from QBDi3. The reduction f is taken from Gurevich [14], but its correctness is proved in Propositions 18-21. The star semantics for BD+ in Proposition 6 is proved from the already-established Dunn semantics of Theorem 1 (Kamide and Omori [18]); although one current author is a co-author of [18], the result is a published, independently checkable completeness theorem with a proof, and it is used only as a stepping-stone, not as a premise that already contains the QBDi3 completeness claim. No fitted parameters, no empirical predictions, and no uniqueness theorem by the same authors are used. The only potentially fragile step is the reliance on strong completeness of MH with respect to a Kripke semantics that includes maximal successors; if that external completeness result does not match the frame condition in Definition 8, the model-existence step would need a different argument. That is a correctness risk, not a circularity: the paper does not define MH completeness in terms of QBDi3, nor cite a same-author theorem to force the conclusion. Self-citations in Remarks 7 and 33 and Section 4.2 concern related systems and are not load-bearing for Theorem 2. Remark 26 flags a constructivist acceptability limitation, but that is likewise not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters appear; this is pure mathematics. The main external inputs are strong completeness of MH and G3, plus the stipulated Kripke conditions in the QBDi3 semantics. No new entities are postulated; the auxiliary predicates P' are eliminable proof devices rather than invented entities.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Strong completeness of MH (intuitionistic logic plus double negation shift) with respect to Kripke semantics, including for theories over languages expanded with new predicates.
    Invoked in Theorem 2 to obtain a model from Γ′, EΓ∪{A}; cited to [3,12], not proved in the paper.
  • standard math Strong completeness of G3 (Gödel 3-valued logic) for linear frames with at most two elements.
    Used in Section 4.1 to justify Theorem 4 for BDi3+(AxG); cited to [7,30,33].
  • domain assumption The QBDi3 model conditions are stipulated: monotone extensions and anti-extensions, V+(w,P)∩V-(w,P)=∅, potential omniscience, and every state has a maximal successor.
    These conditions define the intended model class; they are not derived from more basic principles and restrict the completeness claim to this class.
  • standard math Background intuitionistic principles and double-negation properties used in the reductions, e.g., ¬(A→B)↔(¬¬A∧¬B) and ∃x¬C→¬∀xC.
    Used in Proposition 20 and elsewhere; standard in intuitionistic logic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kamide is in America, Moisil and Leitgeb are in Australia." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3C2RSUD5

@misc{pith2026250100495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kamide is in America, Moisil and Leitgeb are in Australia},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3C2RSUD5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00495}
}
read the original abstract

It is not uncommon for a logic to be invented multiple times, hinting at its robustness. This trend is followed also by the expansion BD+ of Belnap-Dunn logic by Boolean negation. Ending up in the same logic, however, does not mean that the semantic interpretations are always the same as well. In particular, different interpretations can bring us to different logics, once the basic setting is moved from a classical one to an intuitionistic one. For BD+, two such paths seem to have been taken; one (BDi) by N. Kamide along the so-called American plan, and another (HYPE) by G. Moisil and H. Leitgeb along the so-called Australian plan. The aim of this paper is to better understand this divergence. This task is approached mainly by (i) formulating a semantics for first-order BD+ that provides an Australian view of the system; (ii) showing connections of the less explored (first-order) BDi with neighbouring systems, including an intermediate logic and variants of Nelson's logics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peter H. G. Aczel (1968): Saturated intuitionistic theories . In: Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 50, Elsevier, pp. 1–11, doi: 10.1016/S0049-237X(08)70515-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0049-237x(08)70515-9 1968

  2. [2]

    The Journal of Symbolic Logic 49(1), pp

    Ahmad Almukdad & David Nelson (1984): Constructible falsity and inexact predicates . The Journal of Symbolic Logic 49(1), pp. 231–233, doi: 10.2307/2274105

    doi:10.2307/2274105 1984

  3. [3]

    Mojtaba Mojtahedi (2014): Completeness of intermediate logics with doubly negated axioms

    Mohammad Ardeshir & S. Mojtaba Mojtahedi (2014): Completeness of intermediate logics with doubly negated axioms. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 60(1-2), pp. 6–11, doi: 10.1002/malq.201200083

    work page doi:10.1002/malq.201200083 2014

  4. [4]

    Logica Universalis 14(3), pp

    Arnon Avron (2020): The normal and self-extensional extension of Dunn–Belnap l ogic. Logica Universalis 14(3), pp. 281–296, doi: 10.1007/s11787-020-00254-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11787-020-00254-1 2020

  5. [5]

    Logique et Analyse 185–188, pp

    Diderik Batens & Kristof De Clercq (2004): A rich paraconsistent extension of full positive logic . Logique et Analyse 185–188, pp. 227–257

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Logique et Analyse 54(213), pp

    Jean-Yves B´ eziau (2011): A New F our-V alued Approach to Modal Logic. Logique et Analyse 54(213), pp. 109–121

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Oxford, doi: 10.1093/oso/ 9780198537793.001.0001

    Alexander Chagrov & Michael Zakharyaschev (1997): Modal Logic . Oxford, doi: 10.1093/oso/ 9780198537793.001.0001

    doi:10.1093/oso/ 1997

  8. [8]

    Studia Logica 103(4), pp

    Michael De & Hitoshi Omori (2015): Classical negation and expansions of Belnap-Dunn logic . Studia Logica 103(4), pp. 825–851, doi: 10.1007/s11225-014-9595-7

    doi:10.1007/s11225-014-9595-7 2015

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Mathematical sciences 205(3), pp

    Sergey Drobyshevich (2015): Double negation operator in logic N ∗. Journal of Mathematical sciences 205(3), pp. 389–403, doi: 10.1007/s10958-015-2254-3

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    In Katalin Bimb´ o, editor: Relevance Logics and Other Tools for Reasoning

    Sergey Drobyshevich, Sergei Odintsov & Heinrich Wansi ng (2022): Moisil’s modal logic and related sys- tems. In Katalin Bimb´ o, editor: Relevance Logics and Other Tools for Reasoning. Essays in Ho nour of Michael Dunn, College Publications, pp. 150–177

    2022

  3. [11]

    The Journal of Symbolic Logic 83(3), pp

    Makoto Fujiwara & Ulrich Kohlenbach (2018): Interrelation between weak fragments of double negation shift and related principles . The Journal of Symbolic Logic 83(3), pp. 991–1012, doi: 10.1017/jsl.2017. 63

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    The Journal of Symbolic Logic 37(1), pp

    Dov M Gabbay (1972): Applications of trees to intermediate logics . The Journal of Symbolic Logic 37(1), pp. 135–138, doi: 10.2307/2272556. S. Niki & H. Omori 193

    1972 doi

  5. [13]

    Archive for Mathematical Logic 29(2), pp

    Silvio Ghilardi (1989): Presheaf semantics and independence results for some non-c lassical first-order log- ics. Archive for Mathematical Logic 29(2), pp. 125–136, doi: 10.1007/BF01620621

    1989 doi

  6. [14]

    Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic 36(1/2), pp

    Y uri Gurevich (1977): Intuitionistic logic with strong negation . Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic 36(1/2), pp. 49–59, doi: 10.1007/bf02121114

    1977 doi

  7. [15]

    Logic Journal of IGPL 11(6), pp

    Ichiro Hasuo & Ryo Kashima (2003): Kripke completeness of first-order constructive logics wit h strong negation. Logic Journal of IGPL 11(6), pp. 615–646, doi: 10.1093/jigpal/11.6.615

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Journal of Logic, Language and Information 30, p

    Norihiro Kamide (2021): Modal and Intuitionistic V ariants of Extended Belnap–Dunn Logic with Classical Negation . Journal of Logic, Language and Information 30, p. 491–531, doi: 10.1007/ s10849-021-09330-1

    2021

  9. [17]

    In Katalin Bimb´ o, editor: Relevance Logics and other Tools for Reasoning: Essays in Ho nor of J

    Norihiro Kamide (2022): Herbrand and contraposition-elimination theorems for extended first-order Belnap- Dunn logic. In Katalin Bimb´ o, editor: Relevance Logics and other Tools for Reasoning: Essays in Ho nor of J. Michael Dunn , College Publications, pp. 237–260

    2022

  10. [18]

    In: International Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interact ion, Springer, pp

    Norihiro Kamide & Hitoshi Omori (2017): An extended first-order Belnap-Dunn Logic with classical ne ga- tion. In: International Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interact ion, Springer, pp. 79–93, doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-662-55665-8_6

    2017

  11. [19]

    Logic and Logical Philosophy 19(1-2), pp

    Norihiro Kamide & Heinrich Wansing (2010): Symmetric and dual paraconsistent logics . Logic and Logical Philosophy 19(1-2), pp. 7–30, doi: 10.12775/LLP.2010.002

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    Logic and Logical Philosophy 28(3), pp

    Andreas Kapsner (2019): Humble connexivity. Logic and Logical Philosophy 28(3), pp. 513–536, doi: 10. 12775/LLP.2019.001

    2019

  13. [21]

    Reports on Mathematical Logic 15, pp

    Y uichi Komori (1983): Some results on the super-intuitionistic predicate logics . Reports on Mathematical Logic 15, pp. 13–31

    1983

  14. [22]

    Journal of Philosophical Logic 48(2), pp

    Hannes Leitgeb (2019): HYPE: A system of hyperintensional logic (with an applicati on to semantic para- doxes). Journal of Philosophical Logic 48(2), pp. 305–405, doi: 10.1007/s10992-018-9467-0

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    The Journal of Symbolic Logic 14(1), pp

    David Nelson (1949): Constructible falsity. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 14(1), pp. 16–26, doi: 10.2307/ 2268973

    1949

  16. [24]

    The Review of Symbolic Logic 16(3), p

    Satoru Niki (2023): Improving Strong Negation. The Review of Symbolic Logic 16(3), p. 951–977, doi: 10. 1017/S1755020321000290

    2023

  17. [25]

    Journal of Philosophical Logic 50(1), pp

    Sergei Odintsov & Heinrich Wansing (2021): Routley star and hyperintensionality . Journal of Philosophical Logic 50(1), pp. 33–56, doi: 10.1007/s10992-020-09558-5

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Journal of Applied Logics-IfCoLog Journal 10(1), pp

    Grigory K Olkhovikov (2023): On the completeness of some first-order extensions of C . Journal of Applied Logics-IfCoLog Journal 10(1), pp. 57–114, doi: 10.13154/294-9815

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of WoLLIC 2019, Springer, pp

    Hitoshi Omori & Daniel Skurt (2019): SIXTEEN3 in Light of Routley Stars . In: Proceedings of WoLLIC 2019, Springer, pp. 516–532, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-59533-6_31

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    In Nicola Olivetti, Rineke V erbrugge, Sara Negri & Gabriel Sandu, editors: Advances in Modal Logic , 13, College Publications, pp

    Hitoshi Omori & Heinrich Wansing (2020): An Extension of Connexive Logic C. In Nicola Olivetti, Rineke V erbrugge, Sara Negri & Gabriel Sandu, editors: Advances in Modal Logic , 13, College Publications, pp. 503–522

    2020

  21. [29]

    Publications of the Research Institute for Math- ematical Sciences 13(3), pp

    Hiroakira Ono (1977): On some intuitionistic modal logics . Publications of the Research Institute for Math- ematical Sciences 13(3), pp. 687–722, doi: 10.2977/prims/1195189604

    1977

  22. [30]

    Springer, doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-7997-0

    Hiroakira Ono (2019): Proof Theory and Algebra in Logic . Springer, doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-7997-0

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Logic Journal of the IGPL 30(5), pp

    Umberto Rivieccio (2022): Fragments of quasi-Nelson: The algebraizable core . Logic Journal of the IGPL 30(5), pp. 807–839, doi: 10.1093/jigpal/jzab023

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 344, pp

    Umberto Rivieccio & Matthew Spinks (2019): Quasi-Nelson algebras . Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 344, pp. 169–188, doi: 10.1016/j.entcs.2019.07.011

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Logic and Logical Philosophy 23(4), pp

    Gemma Robles (2014): A simple Henkin-style completeness proof for G ¨odel 3-valued logic G3 . Logic and Logical Philosophy 23(4), pp. 371–390, doi: 10.12775/LLP.2014.001. 194 Kamide is in America, Moisil and Leitgeb are in Australia

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Studia Logica 33(3), pp

    Richard Routley (1974): Semantical analyses of propositional systems of Fitch and N elson. Studia Logica 33(3), pp. 283–298, doi: 10.1007/BF02123283

    1974 doi

  27. [35]

    Mathematical logic, pp

    V alentin Shehtman & Dmitrij Skvortsov (1990): Semantics of non-classical first order predicate logics . Mathematical logic, pp. 105–116, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-0609-2_9

    1990 doi

  28. [36]

    Matthew Spinks & Robert V eroff (2008): Constructive logic with strong negation is a substructural logic. I. Studia Logica 88, pp. 325–348, doi: 10.1007/s11225-008-9113-x

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    Matthew Spinks & Robert V eroff (2008): Constructive logic with strong negation is a substructural logic. II. Studia Logica 89, pp. 401–425, doi: 10.1007/s11225-008-9138-1

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    Don Pigozzi on Abstract Algebraic Logic, Universal Algebra , and Com- puter Science, pp

    Matthew Spinks & Robert V eroff (2018): Paraconsistent constructive logic with strong negation as a contraction-free relevant logic . Don Pigozzi on Abstract Algebraic Logic, Universal Algebra , and Com- puter Science, pp. 323–379, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74772-9_13

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    In: 2022 IEEE 52th International Symposium on Multiple-V alued Logi c, 52, IEEE, pp

    Damian Szmuc & Hitoshi Omori (2022): Liberating classical negation from falsity conditions . In: 2022 IEEE 52th International Symposium on Multiple-V alued Logi c, 52, IEEE, pp. 131–136, doi: 10.1109/ ISMVL52857.2022.00027

    2022

  32. [40]

    I, Elsevier

    Anne Sjerp Troelstra & Dirk van Dalen (1988): Constructivism in Mathematics: An Introduction . I, Elsevier

    1988

  33. [41]

    In Renate Schmidt, Ian Pratt-Hartmann, Mark Reynolds & Heinrich Wansing, editors: Advances in Modal Logic

    Heinrich Wansing (2005): Connexive Modal Logic. In Renate Schmidt, Ian Pratt-Hartmann, Mark Reynolds & Heinrich Wansing, editors: Advances in Modal Logic. V olume 5 , King’s College Publications, pp. 367– 383

    2005

  34. [42]

    In Edward N

    Heinrich Wansing (2023): Connexive Logic . In Edward N. Zalta, editor: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2023 edition, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford U niversity

    2023

  35. [43]

    Moscow State Lomonosov University doctoral (Doctor of Science) dissertation

    Dmitry Zaitsev (2012): Generalized relevant logic and models of reasoning . Moscow State Lomonosov University doctoral (Doctor of Science) dissertation

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.