Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 767–782 | Cite as

R and Relevance Principle Revisited

Article

Abstract

This paper first shows that some versions of the logic R of Relevance do not satisfy the relevance principle introduced by Anderson and Belnap, the principle of which is generally accepted as the principle for relevance. After considering several possible (but defective) improvements of the relevance principle, this paper presents a new relevance principle for (three versions of) R, and explains why this principle is better than the original and others.

Keywords

R RM Relevance logic (Semi-)relevance principle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, A.R., & Belnap, N.D. (1962). The pure calculus of entailment. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 27, 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, A.R., & Belnap, N.D. (1975). Entailment: The logic of relevance and necessity (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, A.R., Belnap, N.D., Dunn, J.M. (1992). Entailment: The logic of relevance and necessity (Vol. 2). Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beall, J.C., & Restall, G. (2006). Logical pluralism. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brady, R.T. (Ed.) (2003). Relevant logics and their rivals (Vol. 2). Ashgate: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czelakowski, J. (2001). Protoalgebraic logics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunn, J.M. (1970). Algebraic completeness for R-Mingle and its extension. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 35, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunn, J.M. (1986). Relevance logic and entailment. In D. Gabbay, & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (pp. 117–224). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dunn, J.M. (2000). Partiality and its dual. Studia Logica, 66, 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunn, J.M., & Restall, G. (2002). Relevance logic. In D. Gabbay, & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 6, 2nd ed., pp. 1–128). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galatos, N., Jipsen, P., Kowalski, T., Ono, H. (2007). Residuated lattices: An algebraic glimpse at substructural logics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halldén, S. (1951). On the semantic non-completeness of certain Lewis calculi. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 16, 127–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mamide, N. (2002). Substructural logics with mingle. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 11, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mares, E.D. (2004). Relevant logic. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mares, E.D. (2004). “Four-valued” semantics for the relevant logic R. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Metcalfe, G. (2004). Uninorm based logics. In Proceedings of EUROFUSE, 2004 (pp. 85–99). Exit Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Metcalfe, G., & Montagna, F. (2007). Substructural fuzzy logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 72, 834–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer, R.K. (1973). Intuitionism, entailment, negation. In H. Lebranc (Ed.), Truth, syntax, and modality (pp. 168–198). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyer, R.K. (1974). New axiomatics for relevant logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3, 53–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meyer, R.K., Giambrone, S., Brady, R.T. (1984). Where gamma fails. Studia Logica, 43, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meyer, R.K., & Routley, R. (1974). Classical relevant logics. Studia Logica, 33, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ono, H. (1998). Proof-theoretic methods in nonclassical logic—an introduction. MJS Memoirs, 2, 207–254.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Read, S. (1988). Relevant logic. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Restall, G. (2000). An Introduction to substructural logics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Routley, R., & Meyer, R.K. (1972). The semantics of entailment (III). Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1, 192–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Routley, R., & Meyer, R.K. (1973). The semantics of entailment (I). In H. Lebranc (Ed.), Truth, syntax, and modality (pp. 199-243). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Routley, R., Meyer, R.K., Plumwood, V., Brady, R.T. (1982). Relevant logics and their rivals (Vol. 1). California: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Urquhart, A. (1988). Review on relevant logics and their rivals. Studia Logica, 47, 169–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyChonbuk National UniversityJeonjuKorea

Personalised recommendations