Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 483–529 | Cite as

Neighborhoods for Entailment

  • Lou Goble
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a neighborhood semantics for logics of entailment. It begins with a minimal system Min that expresses the most fundamental assumptions about the entailment relation, and continues by examining various extensions that reflect further assumptions that might be made about entailment. This leads first to the logic B that is the basic relevant logic, and then to more powerful systems. All of these logics are proved to be sound and strongly complete. With B the neighborhood semantics meets the Routley–Meyer relational semantics for relevant logic; these connections are examined. The minimal and basic entailment logics are shown to have the finite model property, and hence to be decidable.

entailment implication neighborhood semantics relevance logic substructural logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Anderson, A. R., Belnap, N. D., Jr., and Dunn, J. M.: Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Entailment, Vol. II, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chellas, B.: Modal Logic, An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meyer, R. K.: Metacompleteness, Notre Dame J.Formal Logic 17 (1976), 501–516.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Montague, R.: Pragmatics and intensional logic, Synthese 22 (1970), 68–94; reprinted in D. Davidson and G. Harmon (eds), Semantics of Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1972, pp. 142-168.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Priest, G. and Sylvan, R.: Simplified semantics for basic relevant logics, J. Philos. Logic 21 (1992), 217–232.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Restall, G.: Simplified semantics for relevant logics (and some of their rivals), J. Philos. Logic bd22 (1993), 481–511.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Routley, R. and Meyer, R. K.: The semantics of entailment III, J. Philos. Logic 1 (1972), 192–208.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Routley, R., Meyer, R. K., Plumwood, V., and Brady, R.: Relevant Logics and their Rivals, Ridgeview Publishing Co., Atascadero, CA, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scott, D.: Advice on modal logic, in K. Lambert (ed.), Philosophical Problems in Logic, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1970, pp. 143–173.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Segerberg, K.: An Essay in Classical Modal Logic, 3 vols., University of Uppsala, Uppsala, 1971.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Slaney, J.: Reduced models for relevant logics without WI, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 28 (1987), 395–407.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lou Goble
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyWillamette UniversitySalemUSA

Personalised recommendations