Skip to main content
Log in

A New Approach to Classical Relevance

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we present a logic that determines when implications in a classical logic context express a relevant connection between antecedent and consequent. In contrast with logics in the relevance logic literature, we leave classical negation intact—in the sense that the law of non-contradiction can be used to obtain relevant implications, as long as there is a connection between antecedent and consequent. On the other hand, we give up the requirement that our theory of relevance should be able to define a new standard of deduction. We present and argue for a list of requirements such a logical theory of classical relevance needs to meet and go on to formulate a system that respects each of these requirements. The presented system is a Tarski (i.e. monotonic, reflexive and transitive) logic that extends the relevance logic R with a new relevant implication which allows for Disjunctive Syllogism and similar rules. This is achieved by interpreting the logical symbols in the antecedents in a stronger way than the logical symbols in consequents. A proof theory and an algebraic semantics are formulated and interesting metatheorems (soundness, completeness and the fact that it satisfies the requirements for classical relevance) are proven. Finally we give a philosophical motivation for our non-standard relevant implication and the asymmetric interpretation of antecedents and consequents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ackermann W.: Begründung einer strengen implikation. Journal of Symbolic Logic 21, 113–128 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, A. R., and N. D. Belnap, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, vol.1, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.

  3. Anderson, A.R., N.D. Belnap, and J.M. Dunn, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, vol.2, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992.

  4. Batens, D., Extending the realm of logic. The adaptive-logic programme, in P. Weingartner, (ed.), Alternative Logics. Do sciences need them?, Springer, Berlin, 2004, pp. 149–164.

  5. Batens D.: A universal logic approach to adaptive logics. Logica Universalis 1, 221–242 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Batens, D., and D. Provijn, Pushing the search paths in the proofs. A study in proof heuristics, Logique et Analyse173–175:113–134, 2001, Appeared 2003.

  7. Church A.: weak positive implication calculus. Journal of Symbolic Logic 16, 238 (1951)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dunn, J.M.,The Algebra of Intensional Logics. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 1966.

  9. Dunn, J.M., and G. Restall, Relevance logic, in D.M. Gabbay, (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol.6, 2nd Edn., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002, pp. 1–136.

  10. Meyer R.K., Routley R.: relevant logics II. Studia Logica 33, 183–194 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Read S.: Relevant logic: a philosophical examination of inference, Basil Blackwell. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Routley, R., and R. K. Meyer, Semantics of entailment, in H. Leblanc, (ed.), Truth Syntax and Modality, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1973, pp. 194–243.

  13. Routley, R., V. Plumwood, R.K. Meyer, and R.T. Brady, Relevant Logics and their Rivals, Ridgeview, Atascadero, 1982.

  14. Smiley T. J.: Entailment and deducibility. Proceedings of the Aristotalian Society 59, 233–254 (1959)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tennant N.: Perfect validity, entailment and paraconsistency. Studia Logica 43(1), 181–200 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tennant, N., The transmission of truth and the transitivity of deduction, in D. Gabbay, (ed.), What is a Logical System? vol.4 of Studies in Logic and Computation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994, pp. 161–177.

  17. Tennant, N., Relevance in reasoning, in S. Shapiro, (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic and Mathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004, pp. 696–726.

  18. Tennant N.: Cut for core logic. Review of Symbolic Logic 5(3), 450–479 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Urquhart, A.,The Semantics of Entailment, PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 1972.

  20. Verdée, P., Strong paraconsistency by separating composition and decomposition in classical logic, in L.D. Beklemishev and R. deQueiroz, (eds.), Logic, Language, Information and Computation, vol. 6642 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, 2011, pp. 272–292.

  21. VonWright G. H.: A note on entailment. The Philosophical Quarterly 9, 363–365 (1959)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Verdée.

Additional information

Presented by Andrzej Indrzejczak; Received October 19, 2013

During the research for this paper, Peter Verdée was a post-doctoral fellow of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders. At the time of the submission of this paper, he is a post-doctoral fellow of FAPESP, São Paulo, Brazilië.

Inge De Bal is a pre-doctoral fellow of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verdée, P., Bal, I.D. A New Approach to Classical Relevance. Stud Logica 103, 919–954 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-014-9599-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-014-9599-3

Keywords

Navigation