Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Logical Studies of Paraconsistent Reasoning in Science and Mathematics pp 1–16Cite as

Paraconsistent Reasoning in Science and Mathematics: Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Trends in Logic ((TREN,volume 45))

Abstract

In this book we present a collection of papers on the topic of applying paraconsistent logic to solve inconsistency related problems in science, mathematics and computer science. The goal is to develop, compare, and evaluate different ways of applying paraconsistent logic. After more than 60 years of mainly theoretical developments in many independent systems of paraconsistent logic, we believe the time has come to compare and apply the developed systems in order to increase our philosophical understanding of reasoning when faced with inconsistencies. This book wants to be a first step toward an application based, constructive debate to tackle the question which systems are best applied for which kind of problems and which philosophical conclusions can be drawn from such applications.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ackermann, W. (1956). Begründung einer strengen Implikation. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21, 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, A. R., & Jr Belnap, N. D. (1975). Entailment. The logic of relevance and necessity (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arieli, O., Avron, A., & Zamansky, A. (2011). Ideal paraconsistent logics. Studia Logica, 99, 31–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Batens, D. (1999). Inconsistency-adaptive logics. In E. Orłowska (Ed.), Logic at work. Essays dedicated to the memory of Helena Rasiowa (pp. 445–472). Heidelberg, New York: Physica Verlag (Springer).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Batens, D. (2000). A survey of inconsistency-adaptive logics. In [7] (pp. 49–73).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Batens, D. (2012). It might have been classical logic. Logique et Analyse, 55(218), 241.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Batens, D., Mortensen, C., Priest, G., & Van Bendegem, J. P. (Eds.). (2000). Frontiers of paraconsistent logic. Baldock, UK: Research Studies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Berto, F. (2015). A modality called ‘negation’. Mind, 124(495), 761–793. doi:10.1093/mind/fzv026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (1995). Quasi-classical logic: Non-trivializable classical reasoning from inconsistent information. Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning and uncertainty (pp. 44–51). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Carnap, R. (1958). Beobachtungssprache und theoretische Sprache. Dialectica, 12, 236–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carnielli, W. A., Coniglio, M. E., & Marcos, J. (2007). Logics of formal inconsistency. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 14, pp. 1–93). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Church, A. (1951). The weak theory of implication. In: A. Menne, A. Wilhemy & H. Angsil (Eds.), Kontrolliertes Denken. Untersuchungen zum Logikkalkül und zur Logik der Einzelwissenschaften (pp. 22–37). Karl Alber, München. (abstract: JSL, 16, 1951, p. 239).

    Google Scholar 

  13. da Costa, N. C. (1963). Calculs propositionnels pour les systèmes formels inconsistants. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences de Paris, 259, 3790–3792.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dunn, J. M. (1976). Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailments and ‘coupled trees’. Philosophical Studies, 29(3), 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ertola, R., Esteva, F., Flaminio, T., Godo, L., & Noguera, C. (2015). Paraconsistency properties in degree-preserving fuzzy logics. Soft Computing, 19(3), 531–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Goodman, N. D. (1981). The logic of contradiction. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 27(8–10), 119–126. doi:10.1002/malq.19810270803.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jaśkowski, S. (1969). Propositional calculus for contradictory deductive systems. Studia Logica, 24, 243–257.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mccall, S. (1966). Connexive implication. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 31, 415–433. doi:10.2307/2270458. http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0022481200066822.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Meheus, J. (2000). An extremely rich paraconsistent logic and the adaptive logic based on it. In [7] (pp. 189–201).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Priest, G. (1991). Minimally inconsistent LP. Studia Logica, 50, 321–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Priest, G. (2006). In contradiction. A study of the transconsistent (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (first edition 1987).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Priest, G., & Routley, R. (1989). Systems of paraconsistent logic. In F. Priest, R. Routley, & J. Norman (Eds.), Paraconsistent logic: Essays on the inconsistent (pp. 142–155). Munich: Philosophia Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Urbaniak, R., & Siniło, P. (2014). The inapplicability of (selected) paraconsistent logics. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 24(4), 368–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Verdée, P. (2009). Adaptive logics using the minimal abnormality strategy are \(\Pi ^1_1\)-complex. Synthese, 167, 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information. Control, 8, 338–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada

    Holger Andreas

  2. Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Peter Verdée

Authors
  1. Holger Andreas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Verdée
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holger Andreas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada

    Holger Andreas

  2. Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Peter Verdée

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Andreas, H., Verdée, P. (2016). Paraconsistent Reasoning in Science and Mathematics: Introduction. In: Andreas, H., Verdée, P. (eds) Logical Studies of Paraconsistent Reasoning in Science and Mathematics. Trends in Logic, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40220-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation