{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034574468085106384, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.547826086956522, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Possibilistic intermediate logic

We define what we call 'possibilistic intermediate logic (PIL)'; we present results analogous to those of the well-known intermediate logic, such as a deduction theorem, a generalised version of the deduction theorem, a cut rule, a weak version of a refutation theorem, a substitution theorem and Glivenko's theorem. Also, we present a definition for 'possibilistic safe beliefs'. This definition allows us to establish a relation between safe beliefs, as presented on 'applications of intuitionistic logic in answer set programming' by Osorio et al., and our version for possibilistic intermediate logic (PILX). We also present a characterisation of possibilistic safe beliefs for possibilistic normal logic programs.