Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:39:30.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

E, R AND γ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Robert K. Meyer  and
J. Michael Dunn
Robert K. Meyer
Affiliation:
Indiana University
J. Michael Dunn
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

By γ, we mean the rule, “From ├ A and ├ Ā V B, infer ├ B”.1 This rule has played an important and a controversial role in a set of relevant logics free of certain well-known paradoxes of implication, like AĀ-→B and A-→(B-→B). Among these logics we count the pioneering systems of strenge Implikation presented by Ackermann in [1],2 as well as the Anderson-Belnap systems E of entail-ment and R of relevant implication.3

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , 17 November 1969 , pp. 460 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Ackermann, W., Begründung einer strenge Implikation, this Journal, vol. 21 (1956), pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
[2]Anderson, A. R., Entailment shorn of modality, this Journal, vol. 25 (1960), p. 388.Google Scholar
[3]Anderson, A. R., Some open problems concerning the system E of entailment, Acta philosophica fennica, vol. 16 (1963), pp. 7–18.Google Scholar
[4]Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D. Jr., Modalities in Ackermann's “rigorous implication”, this Journal, vol. 24 (1959), pp. 107–111.Google Scholar
[5]Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D. Jr., Tautological entailments, Philosophical studies, vol. 13 (1961), pp. 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Belnap, N. D. Jr., A formal analysis of entailment, Technical Report No. 7, Contract SAR/Nonr.-609(16), Yale University, New Haven, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Belnap, N. D. Jr., Intensional models for first-degree formulas, this Journal, vol. 32 (1967), pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
[8]Curry, H. B., Foundations of mathematical logic, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
[9]Dunn, J. M., Algebraic completeness results for R-mingle and its extensions, this Journal (to appear).Google Scholar
[10]Dunn, J. M. and Belnap, N. D. Jr., Homomorphisms of intensionally complemented distributive lattices, Mathematische Annalen, vol. 176 (1968), pp. 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Meyer, R. K., E and S4, Notre Dame journal of formal logic (to appear).Google Scholar
[12]Meyer, R. K., R-mingle and relevant disjunction, Abstract, this Journal (to appear).Google Scholar
[13]Meyer, R. K., Some problems no longer open for E and related logics, Abstract, this Journal (to appear).Google Scholar
[14]Meyer, R. K., A characteristic matrix for RM (unpublished).Google Scholar
[15]Meyer, R. K. and Dunn, J. M., Entailment logics and material implication, Abstract, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 15 (1968), pp. 1021–1022.Google Scholar
[16]Ohnishi, M. and Matsumoto, K., A system for strict implication, Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science, vol. 2 (1964), pp. 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Prawitz, D., Natural deduction. A proof-theoretical study, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1965.Google Scholar
[18]Stone, M. H., Topological representation of distributive lattices and Brouwerian logics, Časopis pro peštování matematiky a fysiky, vol. 67 (1937), pp. 1–25.Google Scholar