Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 305–332 | Cite as

Logic on the Australian plan

  • Robert K. Meyer
  • Errol P. Martin
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belnap, N. D.Jr. and Dunn, J. M.: 1981, ‘Entailment and the Disjunctive Syllogism’, in Floistad and von Wright (eds.), Contemporary Philosophy: A new Survey, pp. 337–366, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  2. Bialnicki-Birula, A. and Rasiowa, H.: 1957, ‘On the Representation of Quasi-Boolean Algebras’, Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences 5, 259–261.Google Scholar
  3. Burns, A. L.: 1966, Aspects of Australia's Defence, Political Studies Association, Clayton.Google Scholar
  4. Brady, R. T.: 1982, ‘Non-Triviality of Dialectical Set Theory’, in Routley, Priest and Norman (eds.), Paraconsistent Logic, Philosophia Verlag, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  5. Copeland, B. J.: 1979, ‘On When a Semantics is Not a Semantics: Some Reasons for Disliking the Routley—Meyer Semantics for Relevance Logic’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 399–413.Google Scholar
  6. Copeland, B. J.: 1983, ‘Pure Semantics and Applied Semantics’, Topoi 2, 197–204.Google Scholar
  7. Curry, H. B.: 1963, A Theory of Formal Deducibility, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  8. Fine, K.: 1974, ‘Models for Entailment’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 3, 347–372.Google Scholar
  9. Henkin, L.: 1949, ‘The Completeness of the First Order Functional Calculus’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 14, 159–166.Google Scholar
  10. Martin, E. P. and Meyer, R. K.: 1983, ‘Solution to the P-W Problem’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 47, 869–887.Google Scholar
  11. Meyer, R. K.: 1973, ‘Intuitionism, Entailment, Negation’, in Leblanc (ed.), Truth, Syntax and Modality, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 168–198.Google Scholar
  12. Meyer, R. K.: 1978, ‘A Boolean Values Semantics for R’, Research Paper No, 4, Logic Group, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  13. Meyer, R. K. and Dunn, J. M.: 1969, ‘E, R and γ’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 34, 460–474.Google Scholar
  14. Meyer, R. K. and Routley, R.: 1974, ‘Classical Relevant Logics II’, Studia Logica 33, 183–194.Google Scholar
  15. Routley, R. and Meyer, R. K.: 1973, ‘The Semantics of Entailment I’, in Leblanc (ed.), Truth, Syntax and Modality, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 199–243.Google Scholar
  16. Routley, R. and Routley (Plumwood), V.: 1972, ‘Semantics of First Degree Entailment’, Noûs 6, 335–359.Google Scholar
  17. Routley, R., Routley, V., Meyer, R. K., and Martin, E. P.: 1982, ‘On the Philosophical Bases of Relevant Logic Semantics’, Journal of Non-Classical Logic 1, 71–102.Google Scholar
  18. Urquhart, A.: 1974, ‘What is Relevant Implication?’, in Routley and Norman (eds.), Directions in Relevant Logic, forthcoming.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert K. Meyer
    • 1
  • Errol P. Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations