I Lattice of truth values for a paraconsistent logic?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lattice Logic
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
243
Usually the truth values of propositions of a logic are structured into a lattice, with 0 (False) on (say) the bottom and 1(True) on (say) the top, and the connecting lines being implication. In paraconsistent logics, there is at least one node which is not implied by 0. Can one safely say that a paraconsistent logic would not be able to refer to a lattice of truth values? If not, what would a lattice for the truth values of a paraconsistent system look like?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
thanks, sysprog; I know the article, but it is not clear to me how one would get a distributive lattice out of these truth tables. I found a more thorough answer in the following article, that I am still working through: "Lattice-baed Paraconsistent Logic", by Wendy McCaull and Dimiter Vakarelov, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3929, Relational Methods in Computer Science ; Springer Verlag, ed. McCaull & WInter, 2006, pages 173-187.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top