<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Paraconsistent Compatibility</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Logique et Analyse</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">183–184</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">46</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">251–287</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper, I present two adaptive logics for paraconsistent com-patibility. The consequence relation defined by these logics leads from a (possibly inconsistent) set of premises to all the sentences that are com-patible with them. Their proof theory is dynamic, but is proven sound and complete with respect to a static semantics. For the consistent case, both logics lead to exactly the same results as the logics for classical com-patibility that were presented in [11]. It is shown that paraconsistent compatibility cannot be defined with respect to a monotonic paraconsistent logic, but only with respect to an inconsistency-adaptive logic. The paper contains modal versions of two well-studied inconsistency-adaptive logics. These modal versions form the basis for the logics for paraconsistent compatibility, but are also interesting with respect to other applications.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>