References

  1. Karen Bennett (2004): Global supervenience and dependence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68(3), pp. 501–529, doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2004.tb00364.x.
  2. Ivano Ciardelli (2016): Dependency as question entailment. In: Samson Abramsky, Juha Kontinen, Jouko Väänänen & Heribert Vollmer: Dependence Logic: theory and applications. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp. 129–181, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31803-5_8.
  3. Ivano Ciardelli (2018): Dependence Statements Are Strict Conditionals. In: Guram Bezhanishvili, Giovanna D'Agostino, George Metcalfe & Thomas Studer: Advances in Modal Logic (AIML). College Publications, London, pp. 123–142. Available at http://www.aiml.net/volumes/volume12/.
  4. Ivano Ciardelli (2023): Inquisitive Logic. Consequence and inference in the realm of questions.. Springer, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-09706-5.
  5. Ivano Ciardelli (2025): Global Supervenience in Inquisitive Modal Logic. The Review of Symbolic Logic 18(2), pp. 589–615, doi:10.1017/S175502032500005X.
  6. Ivano Ciardelli (2025): Inquisitive Neighborhood Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 34(5), pp. 419–461, doi:10.1007/s10849-025-09440-0.
  7. Ivano Ciardelli & Gianluca Grilletti (2022): Coherence in inquisitive first-order logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 173(9), pp. 103155, doi:10.1016/j.apal.2022.103155.
  8. Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen (2018): Inquisitive Semantics. Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/oso/9780198814788.001.0001.
  9. Ivano Ciardelli & Floris Roelofsen (2015): Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese 192(6), pp. 1643–1687, doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0404-7.
  10. Simone Conti (2025): Completeness for Weak Inquisitive First-Order Logic. In: Valeria Gradimondo & Emil Rosina: Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2025 Student Session, pp. 70–79. Available at https://philpapers.org/rec/GRAPOT-20.
  11. Pietro Galliani (2012): Inclusion and exclusion dependencies in team semantics – on some logics of imperfect information. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163(1), pp. 68–84, doi:10.1016/j.apal.2011.08.005.
  12. Deepak Garg, Valerio Genovese & Sara Negri (2012): Countermodels from Sequent Calculi in Multi-Modal Logics. In: 2012 27th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. IEEE, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 315–324, doi:10.1109/LICS.2012.42.
  13. Erich Grädel & Jouko Väänänen (2013): Dependence and independence. Studia Logica 101(2), pp. 399–410, doi:10.1007/s11225-013-9479-2.
  14. Gianluca Grilletti (2017): Disjunction and Existence Properties in Inquisitive First-Order Logic. Studia Logica, pp. 1–36, doi:10.1007/s11225-018-9835-3.
  15. Gianluca Grilletti (2021): Completeness for the Classical Antecedent Fragment of Inquisitive First-Order Logic. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 30, pp. 725–751, doi:10.1007/s10849-021-09341-y.
  16. Gianluca Grilletti & Ivano Ciardelli (2023): Games and cardinalities in inquisitive first-order logic. The Review of Symbolic Logic 16(1), pp. 241–267, doi:10.1017/S1755020321000198.
  17. Wilfrid Hodges (1997): Compositional semantics for a language of imperfect information. Logic Journal of IGPL 5(4), pp. 539–563, doi:10.1093/jigpal/5.4.539.
  18. Jaegwon Kim (1984): Concepts of supervenience. Philosophy and phenomenological research 45(2), pp. 153–176, doi:10.2307/2107423.
  19. Jarmo Kontinen (2013): Coherence and computational complexity of quantifier-free dependence logic formulas. Studia Logica 101(2), pp. 267–291, doi:10.1007/s11225-013-9481-8.
  20. Stephan Leuenberger (2009): What is global supervenience?. Synthese 170(1), pp. 115–129, doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9360-4.
  21. David Lewis (1986): Philosophical Papers Volume II. Oxford University Press.
  22. Tadeusz Litak & Katsuhiko Sano (2025): Bounded inquisitive logics: Sequent calculi and schematic validity. In: International Conference on Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. Springer, pp. 39–58, doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06085-3_3.
  23. Brian P. McLaughlin (1997): Supervenience, Vagueness, and Determination. Philosophical Perspectives 11, pp. 209–230. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2216131.
  24. Valentin Müller (2024): Labelled Sequent Calculi for Inquisitive Modal Logics. In: George Metcalfe, Thomas Studer & Ruy de Queiroz: Logic, Language, Information, and Computation. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 122–139, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-62687-6_9.
  25. Valentin Müller (2026): Geometric theories in inquisitive modal logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 36(3), pp. exaf082, doi:10.1093/logcom/exaf082.
  26. Sara Negri (2005): Proof Analysis in Modal Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 34(5), pp. 507, doi:10.1007/s10992-005-2267-3.
  27. Sara Negri (2014): Proofs and Countermodels in Non-Classical Logics. Logica Universalis 8(1), pp. 25–60, doi:10.1007/s11787-014-0097-1.
  28. Sara Negri & Jan von Plato (2001): Structural Proof Theory. Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511527340.
  29. Vít Punčochář (2016): A generalization of inquisitive semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 45(4), pp. 399–428, doi:10.1007/s10992-015-9379-1.
  30. Vít Punčochář (2019): Substructural inquisitive logics. The Review of Symbolic Logic 12(2), pp. 296–330, doi:10.1017/S1755020319000017.
  31. Robert Stalnaker (1996): Varieties of supervenience. Philosophical perspectives 10, pp. 221–241, doi:10.2307/2216245.
  32. Jouko Väänänen (2007): Dependence Logic: A New Approach to Independence Friendly Logic. Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611193.
  33. Fan Yang & Jouko Väänänen (2016): Propositional logics of dependence. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 167(7), pp. 557–589, doi:10.1016/j.apal.2016.03.003.
Comments and questions to: eptcs@eptcs.org
For website issues: webmaster@eptcs.org