Subminimal Logics in Light of Vakarelov’s Logic

  • Satoru NikiEmail author


We investigate a subsystem of minimal logic related to D. Vakarelov’s logic \(\mathbf {SUBMIN}\), using the framework of subminimal logics by A. Colacito, D. de Jongh and A. L. Vargas. In the course of it, the relationship between the two semantics in the respective frameworks is clarified. In addition, we introduce a sequent calculus for the investigated subsystem, and some proof-theoretic properties are established. Lastly, we formulate a new infinite class of subsystems of minimal logics.


Negation Minimal logic Kripke semantics Sequent calculus 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Core-to-Core Program (A. Advanced Research Networks). A part of this paper was written during the visit of the author to the Hausdorff Research Institute for Mathematics (HIM), University of Bonn, from May to August 2018. The support for this visit and the hospitality of HIM are gratefully acknowledged. The author thanks anonymous referees for their helpful comments, and Hajime Ishihara and Takako Nemoto for their encouragement and many valuable suggestions during the production of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Bezhanishvili, N., A. Colacito, and D. de Jongh, A study of subminimal logics of negation and their modal companions, in International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation, Springer, 2018, pp. 21–41.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bílková, M., and A. Colacito, Proof theory for positive logic with weak negation, Studia Logica, 2019.
  3. 3.
    Colacito, A., Minimal and Subminimal Logic of Negation, Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2016.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colacito, A., D. de Jongh, and A.L. Vargas, Subminimal negation, Soft Computing 21:165–174, 2017.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johansson, I., Der minimalkalkül, ein reduzierter intuitionistischer formalismus, Compositio Mathematica 4:119–136, 1937.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolmogorov, A.N., On the principle of excluded middle, in J. van Heienoort, (ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, toExcel, 1999, pp. 414–437.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nelson, D., Constructible falsity, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 14(1):16–26, 1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Troelstra, A.S., and H. Schwichtenberg, Basic Proof Theory, second edn., Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Troelstra, A.S., and D. van Dalen, Constructivism in Mathematics: An Introduction, vol. I, Elsevier, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vakarelov, D., Consistency, completeness and negation, in G. Priest, R. Routley, and J. Norma, (eds.), Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent, Analytica, Philosophia Verlag, 1989, pp. 328–363.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vakarelov, D., Nelson’s negation on the base of weaker versions of intuitionistic negation, Studia Logica 80:393–430, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information ScienceJapan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyNomiJapan

Personalised recommendations