Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 5
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Väänänen, Jouko 2016. Dependence Logic.

    Väänänen, Jouko and Hodges, Wilfrid 2010. Dependence of variables construed as an atomic formula. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Vol. 161, Issue. 6, p. 817.

    Abramsky, Samson and Väänänen, Jouko 2009. From IF to BI. Synthese, Vol. 167, Issue. 2, p. 207.

    Hintikka, Jaakko and Sandu, Gabriel 2007. Philosophy of Logic.

    Kremer, Michael 2004. 2004 Spring Meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 10, Issue. 03, p. 438.


Hyperclassical Logic (A.K.A. If Logic) and its Implications for Logical Theory

  • Jaakko Hintikka (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 15 January 2014

Let us assume that you are entrusted by UNESCO with an important task. You are asked to devise a universal logical language, a Begriffsschrift in Frege's sense, which is to serve the purposes of science, business and everyday life. What requirements should such a “conceptual notation” satisfy? There are undoubtedly many relevant desiderata, but here I am focusing on one unmistakable one. In order to be a viable lingua universalis, your language must in any case be capable of representing any possible configuration of dependence and independence between different variables. For if such a configuration is possible in principle, there is no guarantee that it might not one day show up among the natural, human or social phenomena we have to study.

But how are dependencies and independencies between variables expressed in our familiar logical notation? Every logician worth his or her truth-table knows the answer. Dependencies between two variables are expressed by dependencies between the quantifiers to which they are bound. For instance, in

the variable y depends on x, while in

z depends on x but not on y, while u depends on both x and y.

But how is the dependence of a quantifier on another one expressed in familiar logical languages? Obviously by occurring in its scope, indicated by the pair of parentheses following it (cf. here Hintikka [1997]). But the nesting of scopes is a transitive and antisymmetrical relation which allows branching only in one direction. Hence other kinds of structures of dependence and independence between variables are not representable in the received logical notation. Such previously inexpressible structures form the subject matter of what has been referred to as independence-friendly (IF) logic.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Jon Barwise [1979], On branching quantifiers in English, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, pp. 4780.

H.B. Enderton [1970], Finite partially ordered quantifiers, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 16, pp. 393397.

Jaakko Hintikka [1996], The principles of mathematics revisited, Cambridge University Press.

Jaakko Hintikka [1997], No scope for scope?, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 20, pp. 515544.

Wilfrid Hodges [1997 (b)], Some strange quantifiers, Lecture notes in computer science (J. Myclielski et al., editors), vol. 1261, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 5165.

Neil Tennant [1998], Games some people would have all of us play, Philosophia Mathematica, vol. 6, pp. 90115.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Bulletin of Symbolic Logic
  • ISSN: 1079-8986
  • EISSN: 1943-5894
  • URL: /core/journals/bulletin-of-symbolic-logic
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *