Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:53:32.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gentzenizations of relevant logics without distribution. I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Ross T. Brady*
Affiliation:
La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia

Extract

The history of the Gentzenization of relevant logics goes back to Kripke [17], who in 1959 Gentzenized R and went on to prove its decidability. Formulae were separated by commas on the left side of the turnstile, the commas just representing nested implications. Kripke employed just a singleton formula to the right of the turnstile. He also considered adding negation, as well as other connectives, but it was not until 1961 that Belnap and Wallace, in [5], Gentzenized and proved its decidability, though their Gentzenization employed commas on both sides of the turnstile. Subsequently, in 1966, the logic R without distribution, now called LR (for lattice R), was Gentzenized in a similar style by Meyer in [20]. He also went on to show decidability for LR by extending Kripke's argument. Later, in 1969, Dunn Gentzenized R+ (published in [1], pp. 381–391) using two structural connectives (commas and semicolons) to the left of the turnstile, and with a single formula to the right. Here, the commas represent conjunction and the semicolons represent an intensional conjunction, called “fusion”. This is all nicely set out in McRobbie [19], where he also introduces left-handed Gentzenizations and analytic tableaux for a number of fragments of relevant logics. In 1979, further work on distributionless logic was done by Grishin, in a series of papers, including [16], in which he produced a Gentzenization of quantified RW without distribution (which we will call LRWQ), and used it to prove the decidability of this quantified logic.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1996

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

REFERENCES

[1]Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D. Jr., Entailment: the logic of relevance and necessity, Vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1975.Google Scholar
[2]Avron, A., The semantics and proof theory of linear logic, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 57 (1988), pp. 161184.Google Scholar
[3]Belnap, N. D. Jr., A formal analysis of entailment, Technical Report No. 7, Contract No. SAR/Nonr-609(16), Office of Naval Research, New Haven, Connecticut, 1960.Google Scholar
[4]Belnap, N. D., Display Logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 11 (1982), pp. 375417.Google Scholar
[5]Belnap, N. D. Jr., and Wallace, J. R., A decision procedure for the system of entailment with negation, Technical Report No. 11, Contract No. SAR/609(16), Office of Naval Research, New Haven, Connecticut, 1961; reproduced in Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 11 (1965), pp. 277–289.Google Scholar
[6]Brady, R. T., The simple consistency of a set theory based on the logic CSQ, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 24 (1983), pp. 431449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Brady, R. T., Depth relevance of some paraconsistent logics, Studia Logica, vol. 43 (1984), pp. 6373.Google Scholar
[8]Brady, R. T., The Gentzenization and decidability of RW, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 19 (1990), pp. 3573.Google Scholar
[9]Brady, R. T., Gentzenization and decidability of some contractionless relevant logics, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 20 (1991), pp. 97117.Google Scholar
[10]Brady, R. T., Hierarchical semantics for relevant logics, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 21 (1992), pp. 357374.Google Scholar
[11]Brady, R. T., Relevant implication and the case for a weaker logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic, forthcoming.Google Scholar
[12]Curry, H. B., Foundations of mathematical logic, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
[13]Dunn, J. M., The algebra of intensional logics, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1966.Google Scholar
[14]Giambrone, S., TW+ and RW+ are decidable, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 14 (1985), pp. 235254.Google Scholar
[15]Girard, J.-Y., Linear logic, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 50 (1987), pp. 1102.Google Scholar
[16]Grishin, V. N., Herbrand's theorem for logics without contraction, Studies in nonclassical logics andset theory (Mikhaĭlov, A. I., editor), “Nauka”, Moscow, 1979, pp. 316329. (Russian)Google Scholar
[17]Kripke, S. A., The problem of entailment (Abstract), this Journal, vol. 24 (1959), p. 324.Google Scholar
[18]Maehara, S., On the interpolation theorem of Craig, Sugaku, vol. 12 (1960/1961), pp. 235237. (Japanese)Google Scholar
[19]McRobbie, M. A., A proof-theoretic investigation of relevant and modal logics, Ph.D. Thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, 1979.Google Scholar
[20]Meyer, R. K., Topics in modal and many-valued logic, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1966.Google Scholar
[21]Meyer, R. K., Metacompleteness, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 17 (1976), pp. 501517.Google Scholar
[22]Ono, H. and Komori, Y., Logics without the contraction rule, this Journal, vol. 50 (1985), pp. 169201.Google Scholar
[23]Routley, R.et al., Relevant logics and their rivals, Vol 1, Ridgeview, Atascadero, California, 1982.Google Scholar
[24]Slaney, J. K., A meta-completeness theorem for contraction-free relevant logics, Studia Logica, vol. 43 (1984), pp. 159168.Google Scholar
[25]Slaney, J. K., A general logic, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 68 (1990), pp. 7488.Google Scholar