Szymon Frankowski Department of Logic University of Lod z email: frankowski@lozof.uni.lodz.

pl

tri-consequences
Abstract

Tarskis consequence operation describes deductive reasoning. It has a few generalizations. For example, by p-consequence ([2],[3]) we shall mean an operation (on the powerset of the xed language) fullling: X Z (X ) and Z (X ) Z (Y ) whenever X Y . Similarly, operation of q-consequence is described in literature ([7],[8]). W is q-consequence i X Y implies W (X ) W (Y ) and W (X W (X )) W (X ). The third condition of ordinary consequence operation CC (X ) C (X ), which is not present in the denition of p-consequence, can be seen as responsible for deductivity of reasoning (p-consequence is assumed as describing non-deductive, plausible reasoning contrary to q-consequence being ultradeductive). We would like to nd some way of combining the mentioned operations (i.e. p-, q- and consequence) into the one. For this aim we need some denitions, if X and Y are some sets, by X Y we shall mean their disjoint sum, that is X Y = (X {1}) (Y {2}). If X Y is some such a disjoint sum, then (X Y )(1) is its rst component, i.e. X , and similarly (X Y )(2) = Y . Such an approach can be generalized on the greater number of components. For example
k

if X X1 X2 . . . Xk , then X =

(X(i) {i})
i=1

Denition 0.1. Let L = (L, f1 , . . . , fn ) be a propositional language. By triconsequence for L we shall mean any operation N : P (L L L) P (L L L) fullling the conditions: i) X2 X3 N (X1 X2 X3 )(2) N (X1 X2 X3 )(3) ii) X Y N (X) N (Y) iii) N ((N (X1 X2 X3 )(1) X1 )N (X1 X2 X3 )(2) X3 ) N (X1 X2 X3 ) We say that N is structural i for every substitution e of the language L: (e e e)N (X) N ((e e e)X). Similarly like in the case of consequence, as well as q- and p- consequence, we can interpret triconsequence by the semantical means: Denition 0.2. By tri-matrix for L we shall mean a structure: M = (M, D , D1 , E, G1 , G ) where M = (M, F1 , . . . , Fn ) is an algebra similar to L and D1 D , E, G1 G are subsets of M . Put NM : P (L L L) P (L L L): 1

 NM (X1 X2 X3 )(1) hhom(L,A) [h[X1 ] D & NM (X1 X2 X3 )(2) hhom(L,A) [h[X1 ] D & NM (X1 X2 X3 )(1) hhom(L,A) [h[X1 ] D &

i h[X2 ] E & h[X3 ] G1 h() D1 ] i h[X2 ] E & h[X3 ] G1 h() E ] i h[X2 ] E & h[X3 ] G1 h() G ]

However, we do not want to restrict ourselves to the semantical tools. The syntactic system for triconsequence will be provided.

References
[1] Ajdukiewicz, K. Pragmatic logic, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1974. [2] Frankowski, Sz, Formalization of Plausible Inference, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 33/1 (2004),pp.41-52. [3] Frankowski, Sz, p-Consequence Versus q -Consequence Operations, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 33/4 (2004),pp.195-207. [4] Frankowski, Sz, Plausible Reasoning Expressed by p-Consequence, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 37/3-4 (2008),pp.161-170. [5] Frankowski, Sz. On the Lattice of p-consequences, Reports on Mathematical Logic No. 45 (2010) [6] Frankowski, Sz, Biconsequences, Logic and Logical Philosophy Vol. 19 No. 4, 2010, pp. 353364 [7] Malinowski, G., Inferential Many-Valuedness, in Jan Wole nski (ed.), Philosophical Logic in Poland, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1994, 75-84. [8] Malinowski, G., That p + q = c(onsequence), Bulletin of the Section of Logic 36/1-2 (2007),pp.7-20. [9] Shramko, Y, Wansing, H Entailment Relations and/as Truth Values, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 36/3-4 (2007),pp.131-144.