SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.25 número4High-Resolution Reconstructions of Aerial Images Based on Deep LearningArtificial Intelligence for Industry 4.0 in Iberoamerica índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • No hay artículos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Computación y Sistemas

versión On-line ISSN 2007-9737versión impresa ISSN 1405-5546

Comp. y Sist. vol.25 no.4 Ciudad de México oct./dic. 2021  Epub 28-Feb-2022

https://doi.org/10.13053/cys-25-4-4046 

Articles of the Thematic Issue

On the Algebrization of the Multi-valued Logics CG′3 and G′3

Miguel Pérez-Gaspar1 

Everardo Bárcenas1  * 

1 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Ingeniería, Mexico, miguel.perez@fi-b.unam.mx, ebarcenas@unam.mx


Abstract:

Multi-valued logics form a family of formal languages with several applications in computer sciences, particularly in the field of Artificial intelligence. Paraconsistent multi-valued logics have been successful applied in logic programming, fuzzy reasoning, and even in the construction of paraconsistent neural networks. G3 is a 3-valued logic with a single represented truth value by 1. CG3 is a paraconsistent, 3-valued logic that extends G3 with two truth values represented by 1 and 2. The state of the art of CG3 comprises a Kripke semantics and a Hilbert axiomatization inspired by the Lindenbaum-Łos technique. In this work, we show that G3 and CG3 are algebrizable in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi. These results may apply to the development of paraconsistent reasoning systems.

Keywords: Paraconsistent logics; blok-pigozzi algebrization; non-monotonic reasoning

1 Introduction

In computer science, it is well known the successful application of logics as a foundation of programming languages, that is, programs can be characterized as proofs in logical inference systems (Curry-Howard isomorphism) [11]. In development Artificial Intelligence (AI), logical languages have also played a key role: in the burgeoning of reasoning systems and even as a tool for proving algorithm correctness. There are even cases in which some logical theories have served for the advanced programming paradigms, such as logic programming [25].

Paraconsistent logics form a family of languages designed to analyze and reason from inconsistencies (from the point of view of classical logic), as is often useful in many AI contexts, such as signal and image processing and expert systems [26]. Within the family of paraconsistent logics, Annotated logics, which encompass fuzzy set theory, are the most widely applied in AI [1]. Another scope of paraconsistent logic is non-monotonic reasoning, a fundamental notion in the development of intelligent systems.

In [2, 3], it is introduced a standard semantics for non-monotonic reasoning in the setting of annotated logics and annotated logic programs. Multi-valued logics are non-classical logics [5]. Like in logic classical, multi-valued logics also enjoy the principle of truth functionality: the truth value of a compound sentence is determined through the truth values of its component sentences and remains the same when one of the component sentences is replacing by another sentence with the same truth value. However, in contrast to the classical case, multi-valued logics do not restrict the number of truth values to just two. A larger set of degrees of truth is the distinctive feature in the context of many-valued logics.

In [15], it is reported a detailed summary of multi-valued logics. Some multi-valued logic systems are presented as families of systems of uniformly defined finite and infinite values, for example, Łukasiewicz logic, Gödel’s logic, systems based on the t-norm, 3-valued systems, Dunn-Belnap’s 4-value system. Most common inference systems for multi-valued logics are Hilbert and Gentzen (sequent) calculus, and Tableaux [15]. A broad class of infinitely valued logics is described by [20].

Classical logic, as well as intuitionistic logic, suffer a disadvantage when reasoning with inconsistent information. According to the principle of explosion, also known as “ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet”, all theory or inconsistent knowledge base is trivial. Classical logic is then useless to reason with inconsistencies. As a result, alternatives to classical logic that do not have this drawback have been developed, called “paraconsistent” approaches. In 1954 F. Asenjo, in his doctoral dissertation, proposes for the first time to use multi-valued logic as a form of paraconsistent logic (logics whose logical consequence relationship semantics or proof theory is not explosive [16]). The focus of many truth values is to abandon the classical assumption and allow more than two values. The most common strategy is to use three truth values: true, false, and both (true and false) for evaluation of formulas.

George Boole introduced the algebra of logic or algebraic logic in [7] as an explicit algebraic system showing the underlying mathematical structure of logic. The methodology started by Boole was continued in the 19th century for the work of A. De Morgan, W. S. Jevons, C. S. Peirce, and E. Schröder. A summary of these works can be found in [8]. The relationship between logic and algebra from the contemporary perspective goes back to the ideas of Lindenbaum and Tarski, as follows: formulas of a given logic are interpreted in algebras with operations associated with the logical connectives. In [6], Blok and Pigozzi proposed a generalization of the techniques of original algebra to encompass a broader range of logics. Generalization of the Blok and Pigozzi method was suggested in the literature [12, 13, 14]. Algebraic foundations for logic have been shown useful in the development of reasoning systems [10, 17]. In this paper, we show that CG3 and G3 are Blok-Pigozzi algebrizable. We believe this result may help in the development of paraconsistent reasoning systems.

This article is organized as follows: in Section 2, we present some known definitions and results according to the setting of the present manuscript; in Section 3, we study the CG3 and G3 logics which are defined in terms of four connectives , , and ¬ where the implication is deductive to CG3. The main result of the paper is also described in this Section, that is, it is shown that CG3 and G3 are algebraizable logics with the Blok-Pigozzi method. Finally, in the last Section, we give a summary of the paper and we describe a list of open problems to be studied in the future.

2 Background

We first introduce the syntax of the logical formulas considered in this paper. We follow standard notation and basic definitions as W. Carnielli and M. Coniglio in [9].

Definition 1 (Propositional signatures). A proposition signature is a set Θ of symbols called connectives, together with the information concerning the arity of each connective.

The following symbols will be used for logical connectives: (conjunction, binary); (disjunction, binary); (implication, binary); ¬ (weak negation, unary); (inconsistency operator, unary); (strong negation, unary); (bottom formula, 0-ary).

Definition 2 (Propositional language). Let Var={p1,p2,} be a denumerable set of propositional variables, and let Θ be any propositional signature. The propositional language generated by Θ from Var will be denoted by Θ.

Definition 3 (Standard logic). A logic L defined over a language L which has a consequence relation , is Tarskian if it satisfies the following properties, for every ΓΔ{α}:

(i) If αΓ then Γα;

(ii) If Γα and ΓΔ then Δα;

(iii) If Δα and Γβ for every βΔ, then Γα.

A logic satisfying item (ii) above is called monotonic. A logic L is said to be finitary if it satisfies the following:

(iv) If Γα, then there exists a finite subset Γ0 of Γ such that Γ0α.

A logic L defined over a propositional language generated by a signature from a set of propositional variables is namely structural, if it satisfies the following property:

(v) Is Γα then σ[Γ]σ[α], for every substitution σ of formulas for variables.

Propositional logic is standard if it is Tarskian, finitary, and structural.

From now on, a logic L will be represented by a pair L=,, where and denote the language and the consequence relation of , respectively. is generated by a propositional signature Θ from Var, this is, =Θ then we will write L=Θ,.

Let L=, be a logic. Let α be a formula in and let X1Xn be a finite sequence (for n1) such that each Xi is either a set for formulas in or formula in . Then, as usual, X1,,Xnα will stand for X1Xnα, where, for each i, Xi is Xi, if Xi is a set of formulas, or Xi is {Xi} if Xi is a formula.

Definition 4 (Paraconsistent logic). A Tarskian logic L is paraconsistent if it has a (primitive or defined) negation ¬ such that α, ¬αLβ for some formulas α and β in the language of L.

Remark 1. If L has a deductive implication , in the sense that it satisfies the Deduction meta-theorem DMT, then L is paraconsistent if and only if the schema formula φ(¬φψ) is not valid, i.e., the explosion law is not valid in L with respect to the negation ¬. That is, the negation ¬ is not explosive.

Now, we present the notion of Logic of Formal Inconsistency.

Definition 5 (Logic of Formal Inconsistency). Let L=Θ, be a standard logic. Assume that the signature Θ of L contains a negation ¬, and let (p) be a nonempty set of formulas depending exactly on the propositional variable p. Accordingly, L is a Logic of Formal Inconsistency, (LFI), with respect to ¬ and (p) if the following holds:

(i) φ, ¬φψ for some φ and ψ;

(ii) There are two formulas α and β such that:

(a) (α), αβ;

(b) (α), ¬αβ;

(iii) (φ), φ, ¬φψ for every φ and ψ.

Remark 2.

  • — When is a singleton, its elements are denoted by p, where is the consistency operator.

  • — A logic that satisfies the property (iii) is called gently explosive.

Finally, we define a stronger notion of LFIs for more reference, see [9].

Definition 6 (Strong Logic of Formal Inconsistency). Let L=Θ, be a standard logic. Assume that the signature Θ of L contains a negation ¬, and let (p) be a nonempty set of formulas depending exactly on the propositional variable p. Then L is a strong LFI with respect to ¬ and (p) if the following holds:

  • (i) there are two formulas α and β such that:

    • (a) α, ¬αβ;

    • (b) (α), αβ;

    • (c) (α), ¬αβ; and

  • (ii) (φ), φ, ¬φψ for every φ and ψ.

Remark 3.

  • — Any strong LFI is an LFI.

  • — If L is a propositional logic then L is a strong LFI whenever the following holds:

    • (i) there are two formulas p and q such that:

      • (a) p, ¬pq;

      • (b) (p), pq;

      • (c) (p), ¬pq; and

    • (ii) (φ), φ, ¬φψ for every φ and ψ.

Definition 7 (Blok and Pigozzi algebraizability). Let Θ be a propositional signature, and let L be a standard propositional logic defined over the language Θ, with a consequence relation . Then L is algebraizable in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi if there exists a nonempty set Δ(p1,p2)Θ of formulas depending on variables p1 and p2, and a nonempty set E(p1)Θ×Θ of pairs of formulas depending on variable p1 satisfying the following properties:

  • (i) δ(p1,p1), for every δ(p1,p2)Δ(p1,p2);

  • (ii) Δ(p1,p2)δ(p2,p1), for every δ(p1,p2)Δ(p1,p2);

  • (iii) Δ(p1,p2), Δ(p2,p3)δ(p1,p3), for every δ(p1,p2)Δ(p1,p2);

  • (iv) Δ(p1,pn+1),,Δ(pn,p2n)δ(#(p1,,pn),#(pn+1,,p2n)), for every δ(p1,p2)Δ(p1,p2), every n-ary connective # of Θ and every n1;

  • (v) p1δ(γ(p1),ϵ(p1)), for every δ(p1,p2)Δ(p1,p2) and every γ(p1),ϵ(p1)E(p1);

  • (vi) {δ(γ(p1),ϵ(p1)):δ(p1,p2)Δ(p1,p2),γ(p1),ϵ(p1)E(p1)}Lp1.

The sets Δ(p1,p2) and E(p1) are called systems of equivalence formulas and defining equations, respectively.

Definition 8 (Relation). Let Θ be a propositional signature, and let θΘ×Θ be a relation defined over the algebra of formulas Θ if it satisfies the following properties:

  • (i) αθα for every αΘ (reflexivity);

  • (ii) αθβ implies βθα for every α,βΘ (symmetry);

  • (iii) αθβ and βθγ implies αθγ for every α,βγΘ (transitivity);

  • (iv) Given αi and βi in Θ (for 1in) such that α1θβ1,,αnθβn, then #(α1,,αn)θ#(β1,,βn) for every n-ary connective # of Θ and every n1.

A congruence θ in Θ is trivial if either θ=Θ×Θ or θ={(α,α):αΘ}.

Definition 9 (Logical congruence). Let L be a standard logic defined over the language Θ.

  • (i) A congruence θ in Θ is compatible with a theory ΓΘ if it satisfies the following:

αθβandΓLαimpliesthatΓLβ.

  • (ii) A congruence θ in Θ is a logical congruence in L if θ is compatible with every theory Γ. Equivalently, θ is a logical congruence in L if, for every α and β:

αθβimpliesthatαLβandβLα.

The usual mode to define the many-valued semantics of logic is through a matrix. We introduce the definition of the deterministic matrix, also known as the logical matrix or just as a matrix. In [19], we can find and an exhaustive discussion about many-valued logic and some examples.

Definition 10 (Matrix). Given a logic L in the language , the matrix of L is a structure M=D,D*,FM = hD, D∗, F i, where:

  • (i) D is a non-empty set of truth values (domain),

  • (ii) D* is a subset of D (set of designated values),

  • (iii) F={fc|cC} is a set of truth functions, with one function for each logical connective c of .

Definition 11 (Interpretation). Given a logic L in the language , an interpretation t, is a function t:VarD that maps propositional variables to elements in the domain.

Any interpretation t can extend to a function on all formulas in Σ as usual, i.e., applying recursively the truth functions of logical connectives in F. If t is a valuation in the logic L, we will say that t is an L-valuation. Interpretations allow us to define the notion of validity in this type of semantics as follows:

Definition 12 (Valid formula). Given a formula φ and an interpretation t in a logic L, we say that the formula φ is valid under t in L, if t(φ)D*, and we denote it as tLφ.

Let us note that validity depends on the interpretation, but if we want to talk about “logical truths” in the system, then the validity should be absolute, as stated in the following definition:

Definition 13 (Tautology). Given a formula φ in the language of a logic L, we say φ is a tautology in L, if for every possible interpretation, the formula φ is valid, and we denote it as Lφ.

If φ is a tautology in the logic L, we say that φ is an L-tautology. When logic defined via a many-valued semantics, it is common to define the set of theorems of L as the set of tautologies obtained from the many-valued semantics, i.e., φL if and only if Lφ.

Definition 14 (Translation between Logics). Let L1 and L2 be logics with sets of formulas 1 and 2, respectively. A mapping :12 is said to be a translation from L1 to L2 if, for every Γ{α}1:

ΓL1αthenΓ*L1α*.

And it is said to be a conservative translation if if satisfies the stronger property:

ΓL1αifandonlyifΓ*L1α*.

If * is a mapping defined on formulas and Γ is a set of formulas, then Γ*={γ*:γΓ}.

3 Blok-Pigozzi Algebrization

In this section, we study the CG3; and G3 logics, which are defined in terms of four connectives , , , and ¬ where the implication is deductive to CG3. We establish that CG3 and G3 are algebraizable logics with the Blok-Pigozzi method.

3.1 The CG3 logic

This section aims to analyze the algebraizability of CG3 in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi, and we see the CG3 logic as a Logic of Formal Inconsistency (LFI).

Osorio et al. defined CG3 logic as a three-valued logic in [21], where the matrix is giving by the structure =D,D*,F over Σ={,,,¬}, where D={0,1,2}, the set D* of designated values is {1,2}, and is the set of truth functions defined in Table 1.

Table 1 Truth functions of the connectives in CG3 and G3 

0 1 2 0 1 2
0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2
0 1 2 ¬
0 2 2 2 0 2
1 0 2 2 1 2
2 0 1 2 2 0

Remark 4.

  • — Observe that is a deductive implication: Γ,αCG3β if and only if ΓCG3αβ.

  • — Considering the natural order 012 in D, the corresponds to the supremum, corresponds to the infimum and is the residuum of :

zxyifandonlyifzxy,foreveryx,y,zD.

  • — The CG3 logic was axiomatized in [23] applying the Lindenbaum-Łos method. Furthermore, the authors define two connectives (strong negation and inconsistency operator):

    • 1. φ=φ (Strong negation),

    • 2. φ=φ¬φ (inconsistency operator).

    • We define the inconsistency operator as follows:

    • 3. φ=¬φ (consistency operator)

    • Truth functions for the connectives , , in CG3 are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2 Truth functions of the connectives , , and in CG3 

0 2 0 0 0 2
1 0 1 2 1 0
2 0 2 0 2 2

In [6], Blok and Pigozzi gave a mathematical concept of algebraizable logic. The main idea of this definition is the following:

A logic is algebraizable if there exists a class of algebras associated with the system of reasoning. In the same way as the class of Boolean algebras is related to classical propositional logic.

Proposition 1. The logic CG3 is a strong LFI with consistency operator defined as above.

Proof. Assume that p and q are two different propositional variables. By considering the valuation v1 such that v1(p)=1, v1(¬p)=2, and v1(q)=0, it follows that p, ¬pCG3q and clause (i.a) of Remark 3 is verified. Consider the valuation v2 such that v2(p)=2, v2(p)=2, and v2(q)=0, it follows that p, pCG3q and clause (i.b) of Remark 3 is satisfied. Now, considering the valuation v3 such that v3(¬p)=1, v3(p)=2, and v3(q)=0, it follows that ¬p, pCG3q and clause (i.c) of Remark 3 is verified. Finally, there is no valuation that makes formulas φ, ¬φ, and φ simultaneously true. Thus, item (ii) of Remark 3 is satisfied. Thus CG3 is a strong LFI w.r.t ¬ and .

Proposition 2. Let h be a valuation for CG3. Then:

  • (i) h(p1p2)D* if and only if h(p1)=0 or h(p2)D*;

  • (ii) h(p1p2)D* if and only if h(p1)D* and h(p2)D*;

  • (iii) h(p1p2)D* if and only if h(p1)D* or h(p2)D*;

  • (iv) h(p1p2)D* if and only if either h(p1)D* and h(p2)D*, or h(p1)=h(p2)=0.

Proof. Immediate from the truth-tables.

Definition 15. Let δ(p1,p2) be the following formula of Σ:

δ(p1,p2)=(p1p2)(p1p2).

Proposition 3. Let α and β be formulas in Σ. Then for every valuation h for CG3 it holds that:

  • 1. h(δ(α,β))D* if and only if we have:

    • (a) either h(α)D* and h(β)D*, or h(α)=h(β)=0; and

    • (b) h(α)=h(β).

  • Thus, h(δ(α,β))D* if and only if h(α)=h(β).

  • 2. h(αα)D*.

  • 3. h(α)=h((αα)).

  • 4. h(δ(α,αα))D* if and only if h(α)D*.

Proof.

  1. Only if” part. h(δ(α,β))D* if and only if in accordance with Proposition 2(ii), h(αβ)D* and h(αβ)D*. By Proposition 2(iv), h(αβ)D* is equivalent to either h(α)D* and h(β)D*, or h(α)=h(β)=0, while h(αβ)D* if and only if either h(α)D* and h(β)D*, or h(α)=h(β)=0. By the definition of , h(αβ)D* is equivalent to h(α)=h(β). Now, suppose that h(δ(α,β))D*. If h(α)=2 and h(β)=1, then h(α)=2 and h(β)=0, violating that h(α)=h(β). Analogously, it is impossible to have h(α)=1 and h(β)=2. This shows that h(α)=h(β). “If” part is obvious, in light of the clauses.

  2. The proof is straightforward.

  3. If h(α)=2 then h(α){0,2} and h(α)=0 and so ; hence, h((αα))=2. If h(α)=0 then h(α)=1 and so h(α)=2; hence, h(αα)=1; therefore, h((αα))=0.

  4. Only if” part. By item 1, h(δ(α,αα))D* implies that h(α)=h(αα). So, by item 2, h(α)D*. “If” part. Suppose that h(α)D*. By item 2, h(αα)D* and, by item 3, h(α)=h((αα)). Finally, applying item 1, h(δ(α,αα))D*.

Theorem 1. The logic CG3 is algebraizable in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi with a system of equivalence formulas given by Δ(p1,p2)={δ(p1,p2)} and a system of defining equations given by E(p1)={p1,p1p1}.

Proof. It is easy to prove that the system Δ(p1,p2) satisfies conditions (i)-(iv) by item 1 of Proposition 3. By item 4 of the same proposition, conditions (v)-(vi) follow easily.

3.2 The G3 Logic

The logic G3 is defining as a three-valued logic in [22]. The matrix is giving by the structure =D,D*,F over Σ={,,,¬}, where D={0,1,2}, the set D* of designated values is {2}, and is the set of truth functions defined in Table 1. Note that G3 is defined in the signature of CG3.

It is easy to check from truth functions that CG3((αβ)α)α but G3((αβ)α)α. So the two deductive systems are different.

We now define a mapping CG3 into G3.

Definition 16. Let the mapping *:ΣΣ given by α*=αα.

We now show the mapping defined above is a conservative translation.

Proposition 4. For every Γ{α}Σ:

ΓCG3αifandonlyifΓ*G3α*.

Proof.Only if” part. Suppose otherwise, that is, ΓCG3α and Γ*G3α*. Then there are a valuation h such that h(Γ*)D* and h(α*)=0, then h(α)(1,2) and h(α)=0, but CG3α then for that valuation h(α)D*, is a contradiction. “If” part. Γ*G3α* implies ΓCG3α*, hence, using the following valid formula (αα)α in CG3, we obtain ΓCG3α.

Corollary 1. G3 is algebraizable in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi.

The systems CG3 and G3 despite, being different, are algebraizable in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi.

4 Conclusions and Future Work

CG3 is defined by multi-valued semantics. The logic matrix is given by CG3 is given by M=(D,D*,F); where the domain is D={0,1,2} and the set of values designated is D*={1,2}. This logic is paraconsistent and can be seen as an extension of the G3 logic, introduced by Osorio in 2008 [22]. In this article, we expanded the studies on these logics, in particular, we showed some results related to algebraic logic. The main result of the work is the algebrization using the Blok and Pigozzi technique.

Algebraic semantics of logical languages implies generality and compositionality in the design, implementation and maintenance of reasoning systems [10].

Among the applications, it is of our particular attention the verification of systems [18]. Another research question of our interest is regarding the relationship of G3 and CG3 and the annotated paraconsistent logics family, defined by Subrahmanian in [24].

Nowadays, many applications to paraconsistent logic are known in many fields of computer science, such as electrical circuits, non-monotonous reasoning, control systems, automation, and robotics, to mention a few [4].

Acknowledgments

Research funded by Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (PAPIIT IA-105420) and by a postdoctoral fellow grant from Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT).

References

1.  Abe, J. M. (1992). Fundamentos da lógica anotada. Foundations of Annotated Logics [in Portuguese], Ph. D. Thesis, University of São Paulo, São Paulo. [ Links ]

2.  Abe, J. M. (2015). Paraconsistent intelligent-based systems: New trends in the applications of paraconsistency, volume 94. Springer. [ Links ]

3.  Abe, J. M., Akama, S., Nakamatsu, K. (2015). Introduction to annotated logics: foundations for paracomplete and paraconsistent reasoning, volume 88. Springer. [ Links ]

4.  Abe, J. M., Nakamatsu, K., da Silva Filho, J. I. (2019). Three decades of paraconsistent annotated logics: a review paper on some applications. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 159, pp. 1175–1181. [ Links ]

5.  Blass, A. (2004). 2003 annual meeting of the association for symbolic logic. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 120–145. [ Links ]

6.  Blok, W. J., Pigozzi, D. (1989). Algebraizable logics, volume 77. American Mathematical Soc. [ Links ]

7.  Boole, R. (1847). The Mathematical Analysis of Logic. Springer-Sciencie+Busines Media, B.V. [ Links ]

8.  Burris, S., Legris, J. (2009). The algebra of logic tradition. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [ Links ]

9.  Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M. E. (2016). Paraconsistent logic: Consistency, contradiction and negation. Springer. [ Links ]

10.  Cîrstea, C., Kurz, A., Pattinson, D., Schröder, L., Venema, Y. (2011). Modal logics are coalgebraic. Comput. J., Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 31–41. [ Links ]

11.  Curry, H. B. (1934). Functionality in combinatory logic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 584. [ Links ]

12.  Czelakowski, J. (2001). Protoalgebraic logics. In Protoalgebraic Logics. Springer, pp. 69–122. [ Links ]

13.  Font, J. M., Jansana, R. (2017). A general algebraic semantics for sentential logics, volume 7. Cambridge University Press. [ Links ]

14.  Font, J. M., Jansana, R., Pigozzi, D. (2003). A survey of abstract algebraic logic. Studia Logica, Vol. 74, No. 1-2, pp. 13–97. [ Links ]

15.  Gottwald, S. (2017). Many-valued logic. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, winter 2017 edition, pp. . [ Links ]

16.  Graham, P., Koji, T., Zach, W. (2018). Paraconsistent logic. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, summer 2018 edition, pp. . [ Links ]

17.  Kupke, C., Pattinson, D., Schröder, L. (2015). Reasoning with global assumptions in arithmetic modal logics. Kosowski, A., Walukiewicz, I., editors, Fundamentals of Computation Theory -20th International Symposium, FCT, Proceedings, volume 9210 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 367–380. [ Links ]

18.  Limón, Y., Bárcenas, E., Benítez-Guerrero, E., Molero, G. (2018). On the consistency of context-aware systems. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 3373–3383. [ Links ]

19.  Malinowski, G. (1993). Many-Valued Logics. Oxford University Press. [ Links ]

20.  Metcalfe, G., Olivetti, N., Gabbay, D. (2009). Proof theory for fuzzy logics (Applied Logic Series), volume 36. Springer. [ Links ]

21.  Osorio, M., Carballido, J. L., Zepeda, C. others (2014). Revisiting Z. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 129–155. [ Links ]

22.  Osorio Galindo, M., Carballido Carranza, J. L. (2008). Brief study of G3 logic. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 475–499. [ Links ]

23.  Pérez-Gaspar, M., Bárcenas, E. (2019). Completeness for the paraconsistent logic CG3 based on maximal theories. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 1659, http://www.EUR-WS.org. [ Links ]

24.  Subrahmanian, V. (1987). On the semantics of quantitative logic programs. SLP, pp. 173–182. [ Links ]

25.  Thomason, R. (2020). Logic and artificial intelligence. In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, summer 2020 edition, pp. . [ Links ]

26.  Zamansky, A. (2019). On recent applications of paraconsistent logic: an exploratory literature review. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 382–391. [ Links ]

Received: August 10, 2020; Accepted: November 02, 2020

* Corresponding author: Everardo Bárcenas, e-mail: ebarcenas@unam.mx

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License