Iterating both and neither: with applications to the paradoxes

DOI10.1215/00294527-2024-0038MaRDI QIDQ6949254zbMATH OpenFDO

Publication date 1 August 2025

Published in Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-66/issue-2/Iterating-Both-and-Neither-With-Applications-to-the-Paradoxes/10.1215/00294527-2024-0038.full

zbMATH Keywords

Belnap computer first-degree entailment higher-order vagueness involutive lattice liar paradox paraconsistent quantum logic revenge paradox

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Substructural logics (including relevance, entailment, linear logic, Lambek calculus, BCK and BCI logics) (03B47) Many-valued logic (03B50) Paraconsistent logics (03B53) Logical aspects of lattices and related structures (03G10) Varieties of lattices (06B20) Categories admitting limits (complete categories), functors preserving limits, completions (18A35)

Review text

The paper develops a uniform account of iterating the semantic options ``both true and false and ``neither true nor false and studies the induced logics and truth-value algebras. Besides the classical values, the framework uses a value for ``both and a value for ``neither and compares several construction schemes: using both-and-neither (\(\mathsf{BN}\)), neither-only (\(\mathsf{N}\)), and a comparable-neither-only variant (\(\underline{\mathsf{N}}\)). The author records systematic differences between these schemes at finite stages (intended readings, tolerance for inconsistency/incompleteness, divergence after one or several iterations) and describes the shapes of the corresponding algebras. The central algebraic result states that, for any involutive lattice \(A\), the truth-value algebra \(\mathsf{ BN}(A)\) embeds into \(\mathsf{ N}^{2}(A)\), and if \(A\) is finite, then \(\mathsf{ N}^{2}(A)\) further embeds into \(\mathsf{ N}^{m}(A)\) for some (possibly large) \(m\) (Theorem~6.1). On the logical side, this yields a limit coincidence: the consequence relations determined by the three iteration routes agree in the limit, i.e., \(\vDash_{\mathsf{BN}^{\infty}(2)} \;=\; \vDash_{\mathsf{N}^{\infty}(2)} \;=\; \vDash_{\mathsf{\underline{N}}^{\infty}(2)}\) (as stated in Theorem~6.2). The paper details the embedding maps and supplies the algebraic proofs in appendices, making explicit how the algebraic containments transfer to the corresponding logical consequences. Compared with approaches that fix a single many-valued base (e.g., \(\mathsf{FDE}\)), this work analyzes three systematic iteration schemes -- \(\mathsf{BN}\), \(\mathsf{N}\), and \(\mathsf{\underline{N}}\) -- uniformly across all finite stages and at the limit. The algebraic embedding results together with the coincidence of limit consequence relations provide a unified explanation of where the schemes diverge at early stages and why they collapse to the same limit logic. From the proof-theoretic and semantic perspective, finite iterations may come apart: \(\mathsf{BN}\), \(\mathsf{N}\), and \(\mathsf{\underline{N}}\) can validate different principles at early stages. The exposition tracks where these divergences arise (e.g., after the first or second iteration) and how they reflect different attitudes toward inconsistency and incompleteness. The limit analysis shows that these differences are eventually washed out by iteration, leading to the same asymptotic logic. Applications are discussed to motivate the iteration perspective: networks of information-processing devices modelled on Belnap's four-valued setting (with \(\mathsf{FDE}\) in the background), the revenge paradox in the theory of semantic paradoxes, and higher-order vagueness. The author explains how the iteration schemes clarify logical behaviour in these contexts (including, under an appropriate reading of input processing, containment facts for early \(\mathsf{BN}\)-stages relative to \(\mathsf{FDE}\)) and how the algebraic results inform the logical comparison.\N\NOverall, the contribution consists of a systematic comparison of iteration schemes for ``both and ``neither, an embedding theorem for the associated algebras with its logical corollary for limit consequence, and illustrative applications backed by detailed appendices.

Cites work

Cited in

(1)

Simple tableaus for simple intuitionistic logics

This page was built for publication: Iterating both and neither: with applications to the paradoxes

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q6949254)