In Rogerson and Restall’s (J Philos Log 36, 2006, p. 435), the “class of implication formulas known to trivialize (NC)” (NC abbreviates “naïve comprehension”) is recorded. The aim of this paper is to show how to invalidate any member in this class by using “weak relevant model structures”. Weak relevant model structures verify deep relevant logics only.
Naive set theory Weak relevant model structures Depth relevance Deep relevant logics
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Work supported by research project FFI2011-28494 financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. G. Robles is supported by Program Ramón y Cajal of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. We sincerely thank a referee of the Journal of Logic, Language and Information for his/her comments and suggestions on a previous draft of this paper.
Anderson, A. R., & Belnap, N. D, Jr. (1975). Entailment. The logic of relevance and necessity. I. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Belnap, N. D, Jr. (1960). Entailment and relevance. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 25, 144–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, R. T. (1984). Depth relevance of some paraconsistent logics. Studia Logica, 43, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, R. T. (1992). Hierarchical semantics for relevant logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 357–374.Google Scholar
Brady, R. T. (1996). Relevant implication and the case for a weaker logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 151–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, R. T. (Ed.). (2003). Relevant logics and their rivals, Vol. II. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Brady, R. T. (2006). Universal logic. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Brady, R. T. (2013). The simple consistency of Naive set theory using metavaluations. Journal of Philosophical Logic. doi:10.1007/s10992-012-9262-2.
Curry, H. B. (1942). The combinatory foundations of logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 7, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar