Abstract
The paper essentially shows that the paraconsistent logicDR satisfies the depth relevance condition. The systemDR is an extension of the systemDK of [7] and the non-triviality of a dialectical set theory based onDR has been shown in [3]. The depth relevance condition is a strengthened relevance condition, taking the form: If ⊢DR- A→B thenA andB share a variable at the same depth, where the depth of an occurrence of a subformulaB in a formulaA is roughly the number of nested ‘→’'s required to reach the occurrence ofB inA. The method of proof is to show that a model structureM consisting of {M 0 , M1, ..., Mω}, where theM ′i s are all characterized by Meyer's 6-valued matrices (c. f, [2]), satisfies the depth relevance condition. Then, it is shown thatM is a model structure for the systemDR.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. R. Anderson andN. D. Belnap, Jr.,Entailment, The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. I, Princeton, 1975.
R. T. Brady,The axiomatization of Meyer's “crystal lattice”, in R. Routley, R. K. Meyer et al,Relevant Logics and their Rivals, Vol. 2, Ridgeview, California, forthcoming.
R. T. Brady,The non-triviality of dialectical set theory, in G. Priest, R. Routley and T. Norman (eds.),Paraconsistent Logics, Philosophia Verlag, forthcoming in 1985.
R. K. Meyer,Career induction stops here (and here=2),Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 8 (1979), pp. 361–371.
R. K. Meyer, R. Routley andJ. M. Dunn,Curry's paradox,Analysis, Vol. 39 (1978), pp. 124–128.
J. Myhill,Levels of implication, in A. R. Anderson, R. B. Marcus and R. M. Martin (eds.),The Logical Enterprise, Yale, 1975, pp. 179–185.
R. Routley,Ultralogic as universal,Relevance Logic Newsletter, Vol. 2 (1977), pp. 50–89 and pp. 138–175, and inExploring Meinong's Jungle and Beyond, A. N. U., 1980.
R. Routley, R. K. Meyer et al,Relevant Logics and their Rivals, Vol. 1, Ridgeview, California, 1982.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brady, R.T. Depth relevance of some paraconsistent logics. Stud Logica 43, 63–73 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00935740
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00935740