Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Bilattice Logic as a Product of 4-valued Modal Logics

A very difficult problem in combination of logics analyzed in (Béziau & Coniglio, 2005)
and (Humberstone, 1997) is to determine an uniform way to get a combined logic without
unexpected results. We analyze bilattice logics to get a combined one in which truth and in-
formation connectives interact. In most of the works on bilattice semantics1 the logics defined
there have two consequence relations for each kind of logical connective, i.e., one for infor-
mation (approximation, or knowledge) order and other for the truth one. This condition could
be a problem if we want a system without unexpected anomalies.
We will call Bilattice Logic to a pair BL = hL, i, where L is the algebra of formulas,
and is semantic consequence relation. L is generated by the language L = h∧, ∨, ¬, ⊃, ≡i
and a countable set of variables V ar. We will use uppercase letters to denote elements of L
and uppercase greek letters to finite subsets of L.
The notion of bilattice we are going to use is based on Nuel Belnap famous “Useful four-
valued logic”, in (Belnap, 1976) and (Belnap, 1977), also the modal extensions that we will
use in this work are presents in (Odintsov & Latkin, 2012) and (Odintsov & Wansing, 2010),
and particularly in (Sedlár, 2016) and (Jung & Rivieccio, 2013). To get an intuitive notion of
a bilatice take the following passage from Jung & Rivieccio (2013):

Belnap saw that his four truth values can be arranged as lattices in two distinct but equally
meaningful ways, ordering them either by information content (the knowledge order ≤i )
or by logical strength (the truth order ≤t )

With this notion in mind we present some basic definitions. A BL-model is a tuple of
the form M = hI, R, 4, D+ , D− .vi, where I is a set of indexes, R ⊆ I × I × I is a ternary
relation, 4 is a Belnapian lattice, D+ is a bifilter (set of designated values), D− = 4 − D+ ,
and v : L × I −→ 4 is a function satisfying the following conditions for connectives2 :

vi (A ∧ B) = inf {vj (A), vk (B) : Rijk}


vi (A ∨ B) 
= sup{vj (A), vk (B) : Rijk}
> iff vi (A) = ⊥
vi (¬A) =
vi (A) otherwise
Validity and consequence are defined in the usual way. Given some A ∈ L we say that A
is validated if it has a designated value at some index, and we write vi (A) ∈ D+ . Semantic
consequence relation is defined as ⊆ P (L) × L. For some Γ ⊆ L and some A ∈ L we say
that Γ A if and only if vi (B) ∈ D+ ⇒ vi (A) ∈ D+ , ∀B ∈ Γ3 . This two definitions are
relative to some order of Belnapian lattice 4.
Given two logics L and L0 defined as the previous one, the first logic take the truth order
and the second take the information order of 4 to define its respective consequence relations
and connectives. We propose, following (Carnelli, et.al., 2008), a way to define the combined
logic L∗ = L × L0 in which informational and truth connectives interact. The language is
the union L∗ = L ∪ L0 of languages of each logical system and the models are of the form
M∗ = hI × I 0 , R, D+ , D− , 4, v × v 0 i, where I × I 0 is the product of the respective indexes, R
1
(Arieli & Avron, 1996), (Belnap, 1976), (Belnap, 1977), (Fitting, 1994), (Jung & Rivieccio, 2013), (Odintsov
& Latkin, 2012), (Odintsov & Wansing, 2010).
2
We understand sequences like vi (A) = x denoting the fact that the formula A has the value x ∈ 4 at the index
i.
3
An alternative definition could be: Γ A if and only if vi (B) ≤ vi (A), ∀B ∈ Γ.
is the product of the respective ternary relations, 44 is a Belnapian bilattice with its two orders
≤ (truth) and  (information), D+ is a bifilter (set of designated values), D− = 4 − D+ , and
v × v 0 : L∗ × (I × I 0 ) −→ 4 is a valuation function satisfying the following conditions for
logical connectives5 :

vhi,i0 i (A ∧ B) = inf {vhj,i0 i (A), vhk,i0 i (B) : Rhi, i0 i, hj, i0 ihk, i0 i}


vhi,i0 i (A ∨ B) = sup{vhj,i0 i (A), vhk,i0 i (B) : Rhi, i0 i, hj, i0 ihk, i0 i}
(
>+ iff vhi,i0 i (A) = ⊥−
vhi,i0 i (¬A) =
vhi,i0 i (A) otherwise
vhi,i0 i (A ⊗ B) = inf {vhi,j 0 i (A), vhi,k0 i (B) : Rhi, i0 i, hi, j 0 ihi, k 0 i}
vhi,i0 i (A ⊕ B) = sup{vhi,j 0 i (A), vhi,k0 i (B) : Rhi, i0 i, hi, j 0 ihi, k 0 i}
(
>− iff vhi,i0 i (A) = ⊥+
vhi,i0 i (−A) =
vhi,i0 i (A) otherwise
This presentation have some advantages over the most popular, the interesting one is that
we can define validity and consequence relation working in parallel with two orders. Due
to the fact that formulas are evaluated at a pair of indexes (truth and information indexes,
respectively) we may capture consequence relation in a single definition.
Given some A ∈ L we say that A is validated if it has a designated value at some pair
of indexes, and we write vhi,i0 i (A) ∈ D+ . Semantic consequence relation is defined as ⊆
P (L) × L. For some Γ ⊆ L and some A ∈ L we say that Γ A if and only if vhi,i0 i (B) ∈
D+ ⇒ vhi,i0 i (A) ∈ D+ , ∀B ∈ Γ6 .
The plan of the talk is as follows. In the first part, we present the problem to define
a combined logic of informational and truth connectives. We present some examples and
possible solutions given in the most known literature. On the second part, we define a logic
of information and truth connectives as a product of two modal logics following the above
definitions. Finally, we present some positive results, a tableaux calculus7 , soundness and
completeness theorems and proposals for future work.
Another positive results are listened above. Normal DeMorgan formulas formulas are
valid. We are able to validate arguments of distribution of informational connectives over
truth connectives and vice versa. De Morgan constructed by informational negation and truth
connectives (and viceversa), are not valid. But, distribution of informational negation over
truth connectives (and vice versa), are valid. Tableaux system have many kinds of rules. First,
we have normal rules for informational and truth connectives. Also we have normal negation
rules, in specific, triple negation. And finally, we have interaction rules. Rules for distribution
of negation over connectives and rules for interaction between the two negations.

References
O. Arieli, & A. Avron. (1996). Reasoning with logical bilattices. Journal of Logic, Language
and Information, 25–63.
4
We use the following notation for truth values: ⊥− ::= only false, ⊥+ ::= neither true nor false, >− ::= both
true and false , >+ ::= only true.
5
We use ⊗, ⊕, − for informational conjunction, disjunction and negation, respectively.
6
Again, an alternative definition could be: Γ A if and only if vhi,i0 i (B) ≤ vhi,i0 i (A), ∀B ∈ Γ.
7
Following (Avron, 2003), (Carnelli, et.al., 2008), (Muskens, 2012)
A. Avron. (2003). Tableaux with Four Signs as Unified Framework. TABLEAUX 2003, LNAI
2796, 4–16.
N. Belnap. (1976). How a computer should think. Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, 30–
56.
N. Belnap. (1977). A useful four-valued logic. Episteme: Modern uses of multiple-valued
logic, 5–37.
J.-Y. Béziau & M. Coniglio (2005). Combining Conjunction with Disjunction. IICAI, 1648–
1658.
W. Carnelli,; M. Coniglio; D. Gabbay; P. Gouveira & C. Sernadas (1965). Analysis and Syn-
tesis of Logics: How to Cut and Paste Reasoning Systems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
M. Fitting, (1994). Kleene’s Three Valued Logics and Their Children. Fundamenta Informat-
icae, 113–131.
L. Humberstone. (1997). Béziau’s Translation Paradox. Theoria, 138–181.
A. Jung & U. Rivieccio. (2013). Kripke Semantics for Modal Bilattice Logic, Proceedings
of the 2013 28th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’ 13),
438–447.
R. Muskens, A. (2012). Calculus for Belnap’s Logic in Which Each Proof Consists of Two
Trees, Logique et Analyze, 643–656.
S. Odintsov & L. Latkin, E. I. (2012). BK-lattices. Algebraic semantics for Belnapian modal
logics. Studia Logica, 319–338.
S. Odintsov & H. Wansing, E. I. (2010). Modal logics with Belnapian truth values. Journal
of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 279–301.
I. Sedlár. (2016). Propositional dynamic logic with Belnapian truth values. Advances in Modal
Logic.