Advertisement

Studia Logica

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 397–416 | Cite as

Syntactical investigations intoBI logic andBB′I logic

  • Yuichi Komori
Article

Abstract

In this note, we will study four implicational logicsB, BI, BB′ and BB′I. In [5], Martin and Meyer proved that a formula α is provable inBB′ if and only if α is provable inBB′I and α is not of the form of β » β. Though it gave a positive solution to theP - W problem, their method was semantical and not easy to grasp. We shall give a syntactical proof of the syntactical relation betweenBB′ andBB′I logics. It also includes a syntactical proof of Powers and Dwyer's theorem that is proved semantically in [5]. Moreover, we shall establish the same relation betweenB andBI logics asBB′ andBB′I logics. This relation seems to say thatB logic is meaningful, and so we think thatB logic is the weakest among meaningful logics. Therefore, by Theorem 1.1, our Gentzentype system forBI logic may be regarded as the most basic among all meaningful logics. It should be mentioned here that the first syntactical proof ofP - W problem is given by Misao Nagayama [6].

Keywords

Mathematical Logic Computational Linguistic Syntactical Relation Meaningful Logic Syntactical Proof 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. R. Anderson andN. D. Belnap Jr,Entailment: The logic of relevance and necessity, Volume 1, Princeton university Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. R. Anderson, N. D. Belnap Jr. andJ. M. Dunn,Entailment: The logic of relevance and necessity, Volume 2, Princeton university Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Gentzen, Untersuchungen über das logische SchliessenMathematische Zeitschrift 39 1935, pp. 176–210, 405–431, Translated in [9].Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Y. Komori,Predicate logics without the structure rules Studia Logica 45 1986, pp. 393–404.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    E. P. Martin andR. K. Meyer,Solution to the P − W problem Journal of Symbolic Logic 47 1982, pp. 869–887.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Nagayama,Syntactic solution to the P−W problem, 1993, submitted toJournal of Symbolic Logic.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    H. Ono andY. Komori,Logics without the contraction rule Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 1985, pp. 169–201.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. Routley, R. K. Meyer, V. Plumwood andR. T. Brady,Relevant logics and their rivals 1, Ridgeview, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. E. Szabo,The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen North-Holland, Amsterdam 1969.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Takeuti,Proof theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 81, 1975, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuichi Komori
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics Faculty of ScienceShizuoka UniversityOhya ShizuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations