Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 20th 2012
   • (edited Sep 20th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have created stubs for _[[inconsistency]]_ and _[[contradiction]]_

   I have created stubs for inconsistency and contradiction

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeSep 20th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks; I added some remarks about [[paraconsistent logic]].

   Thanks; I added some remarks about paraconsistent logic.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeSep 21st 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexAlthough the language is not always used this way, I find it helpful (when considering paraconsistent logics) to strictly distinguish a _contradiction_ from an _inconsistency_ as follows: * $\phi$ is _contradictory_ if, for some $\psi$, $\phi \vdash \psi$ and $\phi \vdash \neg{\psi}$ (equivalently, $\phi \vdash \psi \wedge \neg{\psi}$ if $\wedge$ obeys the usual rules); * $\phi$ is _inconsistent_ if, for every $\chi$, $\phi \vdash \chi$ (equivalently, $\phi \vdash \bot$ if $\bot$ obeys the usual rules); * $\phi$ is _paraconsistent_ if it is contradictory but not inconsistent. (Since the definition of contradiction depends on the operator $\neg$, one might also say a _$\neg$-contradiction_ in case of multiple candidates for negation, as in linear logic.) One can generalise this to speak of more general contexts or even entire logics as being contradictory, inconsistent, or paraconsistent; then we recover the usual meaning of when a logic is paraconsistent.

   Although the language is not always used this way, I find it helpful (when considering paraconsistent logics) to strictly distinguish a contradiction from an inconsistency as follows:

   • $\phi$ is contradictory if, for some $\psi$, $\phi \vdash \psi$ and $\phi \vdash \neg{\psi}$ (equivalently, $\phi \vdash \psi \wedge \neg{\psi}$ if $\wedge$ obeys the usual rules);
   • $\phi$ is inconsistent if, for every $\chi$, $\phi \vdash \chi$ (equivalently, $\phi \vdash \bot$ if $\bot$ obeys the usual rules);
   • $\phi$ is paraconsistent if it is contradictory but not inconsistent.

   (Since the definition of contradiction depends on the operator $\neg$, one might also say a $\neg$-contradiction in case of multiple candidates for negation, as in linear logic.)

   One can generalise this to speak of more general contexts or even entire logics as being contradictory, inconsistent, or paraconsistent; then we recover the usual meaning of when a logic is paraconsistent.