The enduring scandal of deduction: Is propositional logic really uninformative?

L. Floridi, M. D'Agostino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

39 Citations (Scopus)
31 Downloads (Pure)


Deductive inference is usually regarded as being “tautological” or “analytical”: the information conveyed by the conclusion is contained in the information conveyed by the premises. This idea, however, clashes with the undecidability of firstorder logic and with the (likely) intractability of Boolean logic. In this article, we address the problem both from the semantic and the proof-theoretical point of view and propose a hierarchy of propositional logics that are all tractable (i.e. decidable in polynomial time), although by means of growing computational resources, and converge towards classical propositional logic. The underlying claim is that this hierarchy can be used to represent increasing levels of “depth” or “informativeness” of Boolean reasoning. Special attention is paid to the most basic logic in this hierarchy, the pure “intelim logic”, which satisfies all the requirements of a natural deduction system (allowing both introduction and elimination rules for each logical operator) while admitting of a feasible (quadratic) decision procedure. We argue that this logic is “analytic” in a particularly strict sense, in that it rules out any use of “virtual information”, which is chiefly responsible for the combinatorial explosion of standard classical systems. As a result, analyticity and tractability are reconciled and growing degrees of computational complexity are associated with the depth at which the use of virtual information is allowed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)271-315
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2009


Dive into the research topics of 'The enduring scandal of deduction: Is propositional logic really uninformative?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this