The nature of entailment: an informational approach

In this paper we elaborate a conception of entailment based on what we call the Ackermann principle, which explicates valid entailment through a logical connection between (sets of) sentences depending on their informational content. We reconstruct Dunn’s informational semantics for entailment on the basis of Restall’s approach, with assertion and denial as two independent (primary) speech acts, by introducing the notion of a ‘position description’. We show how the machinery of position descriptions can effectively be used to define the positive and the negative information carried by sentences of a given language and to present a formalized version of the Ackermann principle as an inclusion relationship between the informational contents of the conclusions and the premises of a valid entailment. Being so interpreted, the entailment relation exhibits certain properties, including the property of transitivity (and, more generally, admissibility of the cut rule). Whereas properties such as Anderson and Belnap’s variable sharing property or Parry’s proscriptive principle are normally presented as imposing a relevance requirement on valid entailment, the suggested formalization of the Ackermann principle supports all of Gentzen’s structural rules, including weakening, a rule that is normally given up in sequent-style proof systems for relevance logics. In this way we propose an Ackermann-inspired explication of the nature of entailment as a relation between the informational contents of sentences.

[1]  Greg Restall,et al.  Multiple Conclusions , 2004 .

[2]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  On Semantic Information , 1970 .

[3]  A. D. Ritchie The Nature of Thought , 1940, Nature.

[4]  Charles A. Baylis Implication and Subsumption , 1931 .

[5]  J. Barwise,et al.  Shifting situations and shaken attitudes , 1985 .

[6]  Alan Weir,et al.  Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Examination of Inference , 1990 .

[7]  Richard Routley Semantics for connexive logics. I , 1978 .

[8]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Paraconsistent logics , 1998 .

[9]  Christoph Adami,et al.  What is information?† , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[10]  Lloyd Humberstone,et al.  The Revival of Rejective Negation , 2000, J. Philos. Log..

[11]  Bertrand Kiefer,et al.  Anything goes , 1991, Nature.

[12]  Heinrich Wansing,et al.  Truth and Falsehood: An Inquiry into Generalized Logical Values , 2011 .

[13]  J. Michael Dunn,et al.  Relevance Logic and Entailment , 1986 .

[14]  Francesco Paoli,et al.  Logical Consequence and the Paradoxes , 2014, J. Philos. Log..

[15]  Francesco Paoli Substructural Logics: A Primer , 2011 .

[16]  Pavel Materna,et al.  THE LOGICA YEARBOOK , 2007 .

[17]  Hitoshi Omori,et al.  There is More to Negation than Modality , 2018, J. Philos. Log..

[19]  Thomas Macaulay Ferguson,et al.  Meaning and Proscription in Formal Logic , 2017 .

[20]  Nuel Belnap,et al.  Display logic , 1982, J. Philos. Log..

[21]  Richard Routley,et al.  The Semantics of First Degree Entailment , 1972 .

[22]  P. Hertz Über Axiomensysteme für beliebige Satzsysteme , 1929 .

[23]  Heinrich Wansing,et al.  Sequent Calculi for Normal Modal Proposisional Logics , 1994, J. Log. Comput..

[24]  Neil Tennant,et al.  Anti-realism and logic , 1987 .

[25]  Nuel D. Belnap,et al.  Entailment : the logic of relevance and necessity , 1975 .

[26]  Léon Nicholas Brillouin,et al.  Scientific Uncertainty and Information , 1964 .

[27]  Richard L. Epstein Relatedness and implication , 1979 .

[28]  David Ripley,et al.  Paraconsistent Logic , 2015, J. Philos. Log..

[29]  J. Dunn,et al.  Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailments and ‘coupled trees’ , 1976 .

[30]  Mikolás Janota,et al.  Digital Object Identifier (DOI): , 2000 .

[31]  Storrs McCall,et al.  A History Of Connexivity , 2012, Logic: A History of its Central Concepts.

[32]  Josep Maria Font,et al.  Belnap's Four-Valued Logic and De Morgan Lattices , 1997, Log. J. IGPL.

[33]  Peter Schroeder-Heister,et al.  Resolution and the Origins of Structural Reasoning: Early Proof-Theoretic Ideas of Hertz and Gentzen , 2002, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic.

[34]  Rosalie Iemhoff Consequence Relations and Admissible Rules , 2016, J. Philos. Log..

[35]  Viktor Mikhaĭlovich Glushkov,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957, The Mathematical Gazette.

[36]  J. Dunn,et al.  Negation in the Context of Gaggle Theory , 2005, Stud Logica.

[37]  H. Wansing,et al.  An Inferentially Many-Valued Two-Dimensional Notion of Entailment , 2017 .

[38]  Wilhelm Ackermann,et al.  Begründung einer strengen Implikation , 1956, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[39]  B. Martin Rejectivism and the Challenge of Pragmatic Contradictions , 2016 .

[40]  David Ripley,et al.  Tolerant, Classical, Strict , 2010, Journal of Philosophical Logic.

[41]  Rudolf Carnap,et al.  An outline of a theory of semantic information , 1952 .

[42]  Maria Luisa Dalla Chiara Scabia Logic and scientific methods : volume one of the Tenth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, August 1995 , 1997 .

[43]  G. Gentzen Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. I , 1935 .

[44]  C. I. Lewis The Issues Concerning Material Implication , 1917 .

[45]  Everett J. Nelson III.—INTENSIONAL RELATIONS , 1930 .

[46]  J. Hintikka,et al.  What is Logic , 2007 .

[47]  Martha Kneale,et al.  The development of logic , 1963 .

[48]  Kosta Dosen,et al.  Sequent-systems and groupoid models. I , 1988, Stud Logica.

[49]  David Nelson,et al.  Constructible falsity and inexact predicates , 1984, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[50]  Kosta Došen,et al.  Logical Consequence: A Turn in Style , 1997 .

[51]  Greg Restall,et al.  Information Flow and Relevant Logics , 1996 .

[52]  Greg Restall,et al.  Assertion, Denial and Non-classical Theories , 2013, Paraconsistency: Logic and Applications.

[53]  H. Wansing Displaying Modal Logic , 1998 .

[54]  A. J. Dale Anti-Realism and Logic , 1989, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[55]  Edwin D. Mares,et al.  Relevant logic and the theory of information , 1996, Synthese.

[56]  John Woods,et al.  Intensional relations , 1969 .

[57]  J. Łoś,et al.  Remarks on sentential logics , 1958 .

[58]  Greg Restall Truth Values and Proof Theory , 2009, Stud Logica.

[59]  Austin Duncan-Jones Is Strict Implication the Same as Entailment , 1935 .

[60]  Greg Restall,et al.  An Introduction to Substructural Logics , 2000 .