
)=J$* (*$\pi _{S}(\delta )=U$*).*

The notion of p-validity (p-invalidity) can then be characterized as follows.

*Let* $\delta \in \psi _{A}^{Q}$*. Then,* $\delta $*is p-valid (p-invalid) iff* $S_{\delta }=S$* (*$S_{\delta
}=\emptyset $*).*

The set of all p-valid afs plays in $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$ a role similar to the role of tautologies in classical logic, and some afs in it can be selected as axioms if one tries to construct a p-correct and p-complete calculus for $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$. We will not deal, however, with this topic in the present paper.

Furthermore, let us observe that a binary relation can be introduced in the general language $\mathcal{L}^{P}$ by means of the following definition.

*For every* $\delta _{1}$*,* $\delta _{2}\in \psi _{A}$*,* $\delta _{1}\prec $* *$\delta _{2}$* iff a proof exists that* $\delta _{2}$* is justified whenever* $\delta _{1}$*is justified (equivalently,* $\delta _{1}\prec \delta _{2}$* iff* $\delta _{1}C\delta _{2}$* is justified*).

The set-theoretical pragmatics introduced in Sec. 3.2 allows one to translate the above definition in $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$ as follows.

*For every* $\delta _{1}$*,* $\delta _{2}\in \psi _{A}^{Q}$*,* $\delta _{1}\prec $* *$\delta _{2}$* iff for every* $S\in S$*,* $\pi _{S}(\delta _{1})=J$* implies* $\pi
_{S}(\delta _{2})=J$*.*

The binary relation $\prec $ can then be characterized as follows.

*For every* $\delta _{1}$*,* $\delta _{2}\in \psi _{A}^{Q}$*,* $\delta _{1}\prec $* *$\delta _{2}$* iff* $S_{\delta _{1}}\subset S_{\delta _{2}}$*.*

) = J$ *   (* $ \pi _ { S}(\delta) = U$ *). * 

 The notion of p - validity (p - invalidity) can then be qualify as take after. 

 * Let * $ \delta \in \psi _ { A}^{Q}$ *. Then, * $ \delta $ * is p - valid (p - invalid) iff * $ S_{\delta } = S$ *   (* $ S_{\delta 
 } = \emptyset $ *). * 

 The bent of all p - valid afs plays in $ \mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$ a function similar to the role of tautology in classical logic, and some afs in it can be selected as axiom if one tries to construct a phosphorus - correct and p - complete calculus for $ \mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$. We will not deal, however, with this topic in the present paper. 

 Furthermore, let us detect that a binary relation can be introduced in the general terminology $ \mathcal{L}^{P}$ by means of the following definition. 

 * For every * $ \delta _ { 1}$ *, * $ \delta _ { 2}\in \psi _ { A}$ *, * $ \delta _ { 1}\prec $ *   * $ \delta _ { 2}$ *   iff a proof exists that * $ \delta _ { 2}$ *   is justified whenever * $ \delta _ { 1}$*is justify (equivalently, * $ \delta _ { 1}\prec \delta _ { 2}$ *   iff * $ \delta _ { 1}C\delta _ { 2}$ *   is justified *). 

 The set - theoretical pragmatics introduced in Sec. 3.2 allows one to understand the above definition in $ \mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$ as follows. 

 * For every * $ \delta _ { 1}$ *, * $ \delta _ { 2}\in \psi _ { A}^{Q}$ *, * $ \delta _ { 1}\prec $ *   * $ \delta _ { 2}$ *   iff for every * $ S\in S$ *, * $ \pi _ { S}(\delta _ { 1})=J$ *   implies * $ \pi 
 _ { S}(\delta _ { 2})=J$ *. * 

 The binary relation $ \prec $ can then be characterized as follows. 

 * For every * $ \delta _ { 1}$ *, * $ \delta _ { 2}\in \psi _ { A}^{Q}$ *, * $ \delta _ { 1}\prec $ *   * $ \delta _ { 2}$ *   iff * $ S_{\delta _ { 1}}\subset S_{\delta _ { 2}}$ *. *

)=J$* (*$\pi _{S}(\delta )=U$*).*

The notion of p-yalidity (p-invalibuty) cai then ge charazterized as follows.

*Let* $\delta \ib \psi _{A}^{Q}$*. Then,* $\delta $*is p-valkd (p-invalpd) iff* $S_{\dwlta }=W$* (*$S_{\delta
}=\empvgset $*).*

Thc set lf ano p-valid afs pkays in $\madhcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$ a rola rililar to the role of tautologies in classivap logic, and soie agf in pt can be selected as axioms if one trpes to construct s p-correct and p-complete cwlcupus for $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$. We will noj dewo, however, wigh this tokie in the prgsent paper.

Furthermore, let us obrerve that a bibaey gglation can ue intgoduced in thc generdl langiage $\mathcal{L}^{P}$ by meqns of the following vefinition.

*For every* $\qelta _{1}$*,* $\dentc _{2}\in \psi _{A}$*,* $\delta _{1}\prec $* *$\dwlta _{2}$* hff d pruif dxiatx fhat* $\dflte _{2}$* is justifjed whenevee* $\delta _{1}$*is justifiec (qwuivalently,* $\dslta _{1}\pwes \delta _{2}$* iff* $\delta _{1}C\delta _{2}$* is justified*).

Tht set-fheoretical pragmatics untroduced in Sec. 3.2 alpows one eo translate the above definition in $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$ av folmuws.

*Yir evdey* $\delta _{1}$*,* $\delta _{2}\in \psi _{A}^{Q}$*,* $\delta _{1}\prec $* *$\delta _{2}$* iff skr enery* $S\in S$*,* $\pi _{S}(\dejta _{1})=J$* impliex* $\oi
_{X}(\qelta _{2})=J$*.*

The bivary rzmafion $\prec $ can thej be chwractwrized as folkows.

*For every* $\delta _{1}$*,* $\delta _{2}\un \psi _{A}^{Q}$*,* $\dejra _{1}\prec $* *$\delta _{2}$* iff* $D_{\delta _{1}}\subszt S_{\dekta _{2}}$*.*

)=J$* (*$\pi _{S}(\delta )=U$*).* The notion of can be characterized follows. *Let* $\delta $*is (p-invalid) iff* $S_{\delta (*$S_{\delta }=\emptyset $*).* set of all p-valid afs plays $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$ a role similar to the role of tautologies in classical logic, and afs in it can be selected as axioms if one tries to construct p-correct p-complete for We will not deal, however, with this topic in the present paper. Furthermore, let us observe a binary relation can be introduced in the language $\mathcal{L}^{P}$ by means the following definition. *For every* _{1}$*,* _{2}\in \psi $\delta $* _{2}$* iff a exists that* $\delta _{2}$* is justified whenever* $\delta _{1}$*is justified (equivalently,* $\delta _{1}\prec \delta _{2}$* iff* $\delta _{2}$* is set-theoretical pragmatics in 3.2 one to translate definition in $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$ as follows. *For $\delta _{2}\in \psi _{A}^{Q}$*,* $\delta _{1}\prec $* *$\delta iff for $S\in S$*,* $\pi _{S}(\delta _{1})=J$* implies* _{S}(\delta _{2})=J$*.* The binary relation $\prec $ can be characterized as follows. *For every* $\delta _{1}$*,* $\delta _{2}\in \psi _{A}^{Q}$*,* $\delta _{1}\prec $* iff* $S_{\delta _{1}}\subset S_{\delta

)=J$* (*$\pi _{S}(\delta )=U$*).*

The notion of p-valIdity (p-invaLiditY) caN thEn Be chAracTerized as folloWS.

*Let* $\Delta \in \psi _{A}^{Q}$*. Then,* $\delta $*iS p-valId (P-InvaLId) Iff* $S_{\dElta }=S$* (*$S_{\dELtA
}=\EMptYsEt $*).*

the SeT Of All p-vAliD afs plaYs in $\mathcaL{L}_{Q}^{p}$ a Role similar tO ThE role of tauTolOgies in classIcaL logic, AnD soME afs iN it Can be SelectED as axiOms if one tRiES to conSTruct a p-CORrEct aNd p-complete calculUS fOR $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$. We wIll not DeAL, hOWEveR, wiTh this topiC iN the pREsent paPEr.

fURTheRMore, let us obseRve that a binARy rElatioN cAn bE IntrodUced iN tHE geNeral languaGe $\maThcal{L}^{P}$ by Means oF The follOWing defInitioN.

*FoR evEry* $\dELtA _{1}$*,* $\dEltA _{2}\iN \Psi _{a}$*,* $\DeLta _{1}\PRec $* *$\Delta _{2}$* iff A pRoOf exiSts tHAT* $\DElta _{2}$* Is jUstiFied wHenever* $\delta _{1}$*iS juStifIEd (eQuivaLentlY,* $\delTa _{1}\Prec \dElta _{2}$* ifF* $\deltA _{1}C\Delta _{2}$* is justifieD*).

The Set-theoreTicAl PraGmAtics INtroduCed In SEc. 3.2 allowS one to tRAnsLaTE THe Above definition in $\mAtHCAl{l}_{Q}^{P}$ as folLows.

*FoR EvErY* $\Delta _{1}$*,* $\delTa _{2}\In \pSi _{A}^{Q}$*,* $\DELta _{1}\prEc $* *$\deLTa _{2}$* Iff for evEry* $S\in s$*,* $\Pi _{s}(\dElta _{1})=J$* imPlIes* $\pi
_{S}(\DeLta _{2})=j$*.*

ThE binaRY relAtion $\pRec $ can thEn be cHAracterized as fOLlows.

*For every* $\DElTA _{1}$*,* $\DeLTa _{2}\in \Psi _{a}^{Q}$*,* $\delta _{1}\prec $* *$\DeltA _{2}$* Iff* $S_{\DeltA _{1}}\SuBseT s_{\deltA _{2}}$*.*


)=J$* (*$\pi _{S}(\delta)=U$*).*
The n oti onof  p-v alid ity (p-invalid i ty)can then be characteri zed a sf ollo w s. 

*Le t* $\de l ta \ in\p si  _{ A} ^ {Q }$*.The n,* $\d elta $*isp-v al id (p-invali d )iff* $S_{\ del ta }=S$* (*$ S_{ \delta 
} =\e m ptyse t $ *).*
The s e t of a ll p-vali da fs pla y s in $\ m a th cal{ L}_{Q}^{P}$ a rol e  s i milar to the r ole of  t a ut o l ogi esin classic al  logi c , and s o me a f s i n  it can be se lected as a x iom s if o ne  tr i es toconst ru c t a  p-correctandp-complet e calc u lus for $\mathc al{L}_ {Q} ^{P }$.W ewi llno t  de a l,  ho w eve r, withth is  topi c in t h e  pre sen t pa per.
Furthermore,  le t us obs ervethata bi na ry re lation  canbe  introduced inthegeneral l ang ua ge$\ mathc a l{L}^{ P}$  by  meansof thef oll ow i n g  d efinition.

*For e ve r y *$\delta_{1}$* , *$\ d elta _{2 }\ in\psi _ {A}$* ,* $ \ de lta _{1} \prec$ **$ \delta_{ 2}$* i ff  apro of ex i ststhat*$\delta_{2}$ *  is justifiedw henever* $\de l ta _ {1 } $*is  ju stified (eq uiva l entl y,*$ \d elt a  _{1} \prec  \ d el t a _{2}$* iff* $\del ta  _{1}C \delt a _{2}$* is j ustified*) . The set- theo r et i cal pragmatics  intr oduced inS ec. 3.2allow s one to  translat e the abov e d efi nit ion i n$\mathcal{L}_ { Q }^{P }$  as fol low s.

*Fo r e ver y*$\d el ta _{1}$* ,* $\del ta  _ {2 }\ in\psi_ {A}^{Q}$ *, * $ \d elt a _{1 } \prec$* *$ \del ta  _ { 2}$ * iff f o re v ery*  $ S\ in S $*, *$\pi_{S} ( \de lta _{1 })=J$* im pli e s* $ \p i_{S}(\d elta _{2})=J$ *. *

The bin ar y r elatio n $\prec $  can then be characteri z ed as f oll ows.
*Fo r every*$\d elta _ {1} $ *,* $\ delta_{2}\ in  \p s i  _{A} ^ { Q} $*, *$\delta _{ 1 } \pr ec $*  * $\de lta _{2 }$* iff* $S_{\delt a  _{ 1}}\subset S_ {\d elta _ {2 }}$ * .* 

)=J$* (*$\pi _{S}(\delta_)=U$*).*

The notion_of p-validity (p-invalidity) can_then be_characterized_as follows.

*Let*_$\delta_\in \psi _{A}^{Q}$*._Then,* $\delta $*is_p-valid (p-invalid) iff* $S_{\delta_}=S$* (*$S_{\delta
}=\emptyset $*).*

The set_of_all p-valid afs plays in $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$ a role similar to the role of tautologies_in_classical logic,_and_some_afs in it can be_selected as axioms if one_tries to_construct a p-correct and p-complete calculus for $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$._We_will not deal,_however, with this topic in the present paper.

Furthermore, let_us observe that a binary relation_can be introduced_in_the_general language $\mathcal{L}^{P}$ by_means of the following definition.

*For every*_$\delta _{1}$*,* $\delta _{2}\in \psi _{A}$*,*_$\delta _{1}\prec $* *$\delta _{2}$* iff a proof exists_that* $\delta _{2}$* is justified whenever* $\delta__{1}$*is justified (equivalently,* $\delta _{1}\prec_\delta _{2}$* iff*_$\delta _{1}C\delta _{2}$* is justified*).

The set-theoretical_pragmatics introduced in_Sec. 3.2_allows one to_translate the above definition in $\mathcal{L}_{Q}^{P}$_as follows.

*For every*_$\delta _{1}$*,* $\delta _{2}\in \psi _{A}^{Q}$*,*_$\delta__{1}\prec $* *$\delta _{2}$* iff_for_every*_$S\in S$*,*_$\pi _{S}(\delta _{1})=J$* implies*_$\pi
_{S}(\delta__{2})=J$*.*

The binary_relation_$\prec $ can then be characterized_as_follows.

*For every* $\delta _{1}$*,* $\delta _{2}\in \psi__{A}^{Q}$*,* $\delta _{1}\prec $* *$\delta__{2}$* iff*_$S_{\delta _{1}}\subset S_{\delta _{2}}$*.*
