Vagueness and the Connectives

Wesley H. Holliday

2024-11-30

Abstract:Challenges to classical logic have emerged from several sources. According to recent work, the behavior of epistemic modals in natural language motivates weakening classical logic to orthologic, a logic originally discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann in the study of quantum mechanics. In this paper, we consider a different tradition of thinking that the behavior of vague predicates in natural language motivates weakening classical logic to intuitionistic logic or even giving up some intuitionistic principles. We focus in particular on Fine's recent approach to vagueness. Our main question is: what is a natural non-classical base logic to which to retreat in light of both the non-classicality emerging from epistemic modals and the non-classicality emerging from vagueness? We first consider whether orthologic itself might be the answer. We then discuss whether accommodating the non-classicality emerging from epistemic modals and vagueness might point in the direction of a weaker system of fundamental logic.

Logic in Computer Science

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The core problem that this paper attempts to solve is: in the face of the non - classicism of epistemic modals and vague predicates in natural languages, what kind of non - classic basic logic should be chosen as the target of concession. Specifically, the paper explores the following issues:

1. **Challenges of Epistemic Modals and Vagueness**:
- The behavior of epistemic modals prompts the shift from classical logic to orthologic, which was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann in their research on quantum mechanics.
- The behavior of vague predicates prompts the shift from classical logic to intuitionistic logic, and even further abandonment of certain intuitionistic principles.

2. **Main Problems**:
- In the case of considering the double non - classicism of epistemic modals and vagueness, is there a natural non - classic basic logic that can handle these two phenomena simultaneously?
- In particular, can vague predicates be handled by further weakening orthologic?

3. **Specific Exploration**:
- The paper first considers whether orthologic itself can be the answer.
- Then it discusses whether a weaker system, such as fundamental logic, is needed to handle the non - classicism brought by epistemic modals and vagueness.

### Definitions of Formulas and Logic Systems

- **Orthologic**:
Orthologic is obtained from fundamental logic by adding the double - negation elimination rule:
\[
\neg\neg\phi \vdash \phi
\]

- **Compatibility Logic**:
Compatibility logic is obtained by strengthening the proof - by - cases rule:
\[
\text{If } \alpha \land \phi \vdash \chi \text{ and } \alpha \land \psi \vdash \chi, \text{ then } \alpha \land (\phi \lor \psi) \vdash \chi
\]

- **Intuitionistic Logic**:
Intuitionistic logic is obtained by strengthening the pseudocomplementation rule:
\[
\text{If } \phi \land \psi \vdash \bot, \text{ then } \psi \vdash \neg\phi
\]

- **Classical Logic**:
Classical logic is obtained by further strengthening the proof - by - cases or pseudocomplementation in orthologic.

### Treatment of the Sorites Paradox

The core of the Sorites Paradox lies in the expression:
\[
p_1 \land \neg p_n \land \bigwedge_{i = 1}^{n - 1}\neg(p_i \land \neg p_{i + 1})
\]
This expression is inconsistent in classical logic. The paper explores how to handle this paradox in different logic systems, especially the logic system proposed by Fine, which makes the above expression satisfiable in some algebraic structures through weak pseudocomplementation.

### Conclusion

The main contribution of the paper lies in exploring how to choose an appropriate non - classic basic logic in the face of the double challenges of epistemic modals and vagueness. By comparing different logic systems, the author proposes fundamental logic as a possible solution and explores its effectiveness in handling the Sorites Paradox.

Hopefully, this summary can help you understand the core problems and main conclusions of the paper. If you have more questions or need further explanations, please feel free to let us know.