I provide an analysis of sentences of the form ‘To be F is to be G’ in terms of exact truth-maker semantics—an approach that identifies the meanings of sentences with the states of the world directly responsible for their truth-values. Roughly, I argue that these sentences hold just in case that which makes something F also makes it G. This approach is hyperintensional and possesses desirable logical and modal features. In particular, these sentences are reflexive, transitive, and symmetric, and if they are true, then they are necessarily true, and it is necessary that all and only Fs are Gs. I motivate my account over Correia and Skiles’ [11] prominent alternative and close by defining an irreflexive and asymmetric notion of analysis in terms of the symmetric and reflexive notion.

In previous work, the author has shown that $\Pi ^1_1$-induction along $\mathbb N$ is equivalent to a suitable formalization of the statement that every normal function on the ordinals has a fixed point. More precisely, this was proved for a representation of normal functions in terms of Girard’s dilators, which are particularly uniform transformations of well orders. The present paper works on the next type level and considers uniform transformations of dilators, which are called 2-ptykes. We show that $\Pi ^1_2$-induction along $\mathbb N$ is equivalent to the existence of fixed points for all 2-ptykes that satisfy a certain normality condition. Beyond this specific result, the paper paves the way for the analysis of further $\Pi ^1_4$-statements in terms of well ordering principles.

We define a fragment of monadic infinitary second-order logic corresponding to an abstract separation property. We use this to define the concept of a separation subclass. We use model theoretic techniques and games to show that separation subclasses whose axiomatisations are recursively enumerable in our second-order fragment can also be recursively axiomatised in their original first-order language. We pin down the expressive power of this formalism with respect to first-order logic, and investigate some questions relating to decidability and computational complexity. As applications of these results, by showing that certain classes can be straightforwardly defined as separation subclasses, we obtain first-order axiomatisability results for these classes. In particular we apply this technique to graph colourings and a class of partial algebras arising from separation logic.

The Jordan decomposition theorem states that every function $f \colon \, [0,1] \to \mathbb {R}$ of bounded variation can be written as the difference of two non-decreasing functions. Combining this fact with a result of Lebesgue, every function of bounded variation is differentiable almost everywhere in the sense of Lebesgue measure. We analyze the strength of these theorems in the setting of reverse mathematics. Over $\mathsf {RCA}_{0}$, a stronger version of Jordan’s result where all functions are continuous is equivalent to $\mathsf {ACA}_0$, while the version stated is equivalent to ${\textsf {WKL}}_{0}$. The result that every function on $[0,1]$ of bounded variation is almost everywhere differentiable is equivalent to ${\textsf {WWKL}}_{0}$. To state this equivalence in a meaningful way, we develop a theory of Martin–Löf randomness over $\mathsf {RCA}_0$.

We prove that the two-variable fragment of first-order logic has the weak Beth definability property. This makes the two-variable fragment a natural logic separating the weak and the strong Beth properties since it does not have the strong Beth definability property.

We prove that the existence of a measurable cardinal is equivalent to the existence of a normal space whose modal logic coincides with the modal logic of the Kripke frame isomorphic to the powerset of a two element set.

We investigate the uniform computational content of the open and clopen Ramsey theorems in the Weihrauch lattice. While they are known to be equivalent to $\mathrm {ATR_0}$ from the point of view of reverse mathematics, there is not a canonical way to phrase them as multivalued functions. We identify eight different multivalued functions (five corresponding to the open Ramsey theorem and three corresponding to the clopen Ramsey theorem) and study their degree from the point of view of Weihrauch, strong Weihrauch, and arithmetic Weihrauch reducibility. In particular one of our functions turns out to be strictly stronger than any previously studied multivalued functions arising from statements around $\mathrm {ATR}_0$.

We explore the problems that confront any attempt to explain or explicate exactly what a primitive logical rule of inference is, or consists in. We arrive at a proposed solution that places a surprisingly heavy load on the prospect of being able to understand and deal with specifications of rules that are essentially self-referring. That is, any rule $\rho $ is to be understood via a specification that involves, embedded within it, reference to rule $\rho $ itself. Just how we arrive at this position is explained by reference to familiar rules as well as less familiar ones with unusual features. An inquiry of this kind is surprisingly absent from the foundations of inferentialism—the view that meanings of expressions (especially logical ones) are to be characterized by the rules of inference that govern them.

I show that the logic $\textsf {TJK}^{d+}$, one of the strongest logics currently known to support the naive theory of truth, is obtained from the Kripke semantics for constant domain intuitionistic logic by (i) dropping the requirement that the accessibility relation is reflexive and (ii) only allowing reflexive worlds to serve as counterexamples to logical consequence. In addition, I provide a simplified natural deduction system for $\textsf {TJK}^{d+}$, in which a restricted form of conditional proof is used to establish conditionals.

We consider the modality “$\varphi $ is true in every $\sigma $-centered forcing extension,” denoted $\square \varphi $, and its dual “$\varphi $ is true in some $\sigma $-centered forcing extension,” denoted $\lozenge \varphi $ (where $\varphi $ is a statement in set theory), which give rise to the notion of a principle of $\sigma $-centered forcing. We prove that if ZFC is consistent, then the modal logic of $\sigma $-centered forcing, i.e., the ZFC-provable principles of $\sigma $-centered forcing, is exactly $\mathsf {S4.2}$. We also generalize this result to other related classes of forcing.

We prove a number of elementary facts about computability in partial combinatory algebras (pca’s). We disprove a suggestion made by Kreisel about using Friedberg numberings to construct extensional pca’s. We then discuss separability and elements without total extensions. We relate this to Ershov’s notion of precompleteness, and we show that precomplete numberings are not 1–1 in general.

In [12], John Stillwell wrote, ‘finding the exact strength of the Brouwer invariance theorems seems to me one of the most interesting open problems in reverse mathematics.’ In this article, we solve Stillwell’s problem by showing that (some forms of) the Brouwer invariance theorems are equivalent to the weak König’s lemma over the base system ${\sf RCA}_0$. In particular, there exists an explicit algorithm which, whenever the weak König’s lemma is false, constructs a topological embedding of $\mathbb {R}^4$ into $\mathbb {R}^3$.

Inquisitive modal logic, InqML, is a generalisation of standard Kripke-style modal logic. In its epistemic incarnation, it extends standard epistemic logic to capture not just the information that agents have, but also the questions that they are interested in. Technically, InqML fits within the family of logics based on team semantics. From a model-theoretic perspective, it takes us a step in the direction of monadic second-order logic, as inquisitive modal operators involve quantification over sets of worlds. We introduce and investigate the natural notion of bisimulation equivalence in the setting of InqML. We compare the expressiveness of InqML and first-order logic in the context of relational structures with two sorts, one for worlds and one for information states, and characterise inquisitive modal logic as the bisimulation invariant fragment of first-order logic over various natural classes of two-sorted structures.

We prove that the Weihrauch lattice can be transformed into a Brouwer algebra by the consecutive application of two closure operators in the appropriate order: first completion and then parallelization. The closure operator of completion is a new closure operator that we introduce. It transforms any problem into a total problem on the completion of the respective types, where we allow any value outside of the original domain of the problem. This closure operator is of interest by itself, as it generates a total version of Weihrauch reducibility that is defined like the usual version of Weihrauch reducibility, but in terms of total realizers. From a logical perspective completion can be seen as a way to make problems independent of their premises. Alongside with the completion operator and total Weihrauch reducibility we need to study precomplete representations that are required to describe these concepts. In order to show that the parallelized total Weihrauch lattice forms a Brouwer algebra, we introduce a new multiplicative version of an implication. While the parallelized total Weihrauch lattice forms a Brouwer algebra with this implication, the total Weihrauch lattice fails to be a model of intuitionistic linear logic in two different ways. In order to pinpoint the algebraic reasons for this failure, we introduce the concept of a Weihrauch algebra that allows us to formulate the failure in precise and neat terms. Finally, we show that the Medvedev Brouwer algebra can be embedded into our Brouwer algebra, which also implies that the theory of our Brouwer algebra is Jankov logic.

Ramsey’s theorem asserts that every k-coloring of $[\omega ]^n$ admits an infinite monochromatic set. Whenever $n \geq 3$, there exists a computable k-coloring of $[\omega ]^n$ whose solutions compute the halting set. On the other hand, for every computable k-coloring of $[\omega ]^2$ and every noncomputable set C, there is an infinite monochromatic set H such that $C \not \leq _T H$. The latter property is known as cone avoidance.

In this article, we design a natural class of Ramsey-like theorems encompassing many statements studied in reverse mathematics. We prove that this class admits a maximal statement satisfying cone avoidance and use it as a criterion to re-obtain many existing proofs of cone avoidance. This maximal statement asserts the existence, for every k-coloring of $[\omega ]^n$, of an infinite subdomain $H \subseteq \omega $ over which the coloring depends only on the sparsity of its elements. This confirms the intuition that Ramsey-like theorems compute Turing degrees only through the sparsity of its solutions.

We determine the modal logic of fixed-point models of truth and their axiomatizations by Solomon Feferman via Solovay-style completeness results. Given a fixed-point model $\mathcal {M}$, or an axiomatization S thereof, we find a modal logic M such that a modal sentence $\varphi $ is a theorem of M if and only if the sentence $\varphi ^*$ obtained by translating the modal operator with the truth predicate is true in $\mathcal {M}$ or a theorem of S under all such translations. To this end, we introduce a novel version of possible worlds semantics featuring both classical and nonclassical worlds and establish the completeness of a family of noncongruent modal logics whose internal logic is nonclassical with respect to this semantics.

We characterize Weihrauch reducibility in $ \operatorname {\mathrm {E-PA^{\omega }}} + \operatorname {\mathrm {QF-AC^{0,0}}}$ and all systems containing it by the provability in a linear variant of the same calculus using modifications of Gödel’s Dialectica interpretation that incorporate ideas from linear logic, nonstandard arithmetic, higher-order computability, and phase semantics.

This paper explores the analysis of ability, where ability is to be understood in the epistemic sense—in contrast to what might be called a causal sense. There are plenty of cases where an agent is able to perform an action that guarantees a given result even though she does not know which of her actions guarantees that result. Such an agent possesses the causal ability but lacks the epistemic ability. The standard analysis of such epistemic abilities relies on the notion of action types—as opposed to action tokens—and then posits that an agent has the epistemic ability to do something if and only if there is an action type available to her that she knows guarantees it. We show that these action types are not needed: we present a formalism without action types that can simulate analyzes of epistemic ability that rely on action types. Our formalism is a standard epistemic extension of the theory of “seeing to it that”, which arose from a modal tradition in the logic of action.

This paper explores relational syllogistic logics, a family of logical systems related to reasoning about relations in extensions of the classical syllogistic. These are all decidable logical systems. We prove completeness theorems and complexity results for a natural subfamily of relational syllogistic logics, parametrized by constructors for terms and for sentences.

In this article, I provide Urquhart-style semilattice semantics for three connexive logics in an implication-negation language (I call these “pure theories of connexive implication”). The systems semantically characterized include the implication-negation fragment of a connexive logic of Wansing, a relevant connexive logic recently developed proof-theoretically by Francez, and an intermediate system that is novel to this article. Simple proofs of soundness and completeness are given and the semantics is used to establish various facts about the systems (e.g., that two of the systems have the variable sharing property). I emphasize the intuitive content of the semantics and discuss how natural informational considerations underly each of the examined systems.