Journal of Logic and Computation

Journal of Logic and Computation Advance Access published online on October 20, 2009
Journal of Logic and Computation, doi:10.1093/logcom/exp068

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Mares, E. D. Social Bookmarking          What's this?

© The Author, 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Original Papers

Relevance and Conjunction

Edwin D. Mares

Philosophy and Centre for Logic, Language, and Computation, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand.
E-mail: edwin.mares{at}vuw.ac.nz

Received 1 June 2008.

This article gives an interpretation and justification of extensional and intensional conjunction in the relevant logic R. The interpretive frameworks are Anderson and Belnap's natural deduction system and the theory of situated inference from Mares, Relevant Logic.

Keywords: Logic; relevant logic; philosophical logic; proof theory

References

1. Anderson AR, Belnap ND. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity (1975) 1. Princeton University Press.
2. Anderson AR, Belnap ND, Dunn JM. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity (1992) 2. Princeton University Press.
3. Barwise J, Perry J. Situations and Attitudes (1983) MIT Press.
4. Belnap ND. Tonk, Plonk and Plink. Analysis (1960) 22:130–134. reprinted in [19], 132–317.[CrossRef]
5. Brady RT. Normalized natural deduction systems for some relevant logics I: the logic DW. The Journal of Symbolic Logic (2006) 71:35–66.[CrossRef]
6. Church A. The weak theory of implication. In: Kontrolliertes Deken, Untersuchungen zum Logikkalulkül und zur Logik der Eizelwissenschaften—Menne A, et al, eds. (1951) Kommissions-Verlag Karl Alber. 22–37.
7. Cross C. Armstrong and the problem of converse relations. Erkenntnis (2002) 56:215–227.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
8. Dummett MAE. The Logical Basis of Metaphysics (1991) Harvard University Press.
9. Fine K. Models for Entailment. Journal of Philosophical Logic (1974) 3:347–372.[Web of Science]
10. Husserl E. Experience and Judgment (1973) Northwestern University Press.
11. Leslie N, Mares E. CHR: a constructive natural deduction logic. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (2004) 91:158–170.[CrossRef]
12. Mares ED. Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Interpretation (2004) Cambridge University Press.
13. Mares ED. General Information in Relevant Logic. Synthese (2009) 167:343–362.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
14. Prior AN. The runabout inference ticket. Analysis (1960) 21:38–39. reprinted in [19], 129–131.[Free Full Text]
15. Read S. Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Interpretation of Inference (1988) Blackwell.
16. Restall G. Introduction to Substructural Logics (2000) London: Routledge.
17. Rivenc F. Introduction à la logique pertinente (2005) Presses Universitaire de France.
18. Routley R, Meyer RK, Plumwood V, Brady RT. Relevant Logics and their Rivals (1982) 1. [Ridgeview].
19. Russell BAW. Principles of Mathematics (1937) 2nd edn. George Allen and Unwin.
20. Strawson PF, ed. Philosophical Logic (1967) Oxford University Press.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    What's this?

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Mares, E. D. Social Bookmarking          What's this?