Abstract
I am not a Relevantist. But, were I one, I might speak something like this. “In their epochal work Entailment (vol. I, Anderson and Belnap, 1975, with others), Relevant Logicians have led us out of the Material dominions of the great Boole. They wave the Archetypal Form of Inference A → A, and the Truth-functional Sea parts, that the Children of Relevance might reach the far side in safety, there to practice Natural Deduction according to the systems of their choice in peace, tranquility, and mathematical exactitude. But the Sea returns to claim the pursuing Official Logicians, who are weighed down by false theorems. Just is the fate of these Officials. For they have bowed down before Irrelevant Entailments in which antecedents and consequents share no variable. And they have allowed the Accidental Premiss to beget the Necessitive Conclusion. Drowned are they in their own Paradoxes and Contradictions; and in the Flood of Nonsense that follows therefrom.”
Keywords
Parity Principle Logical Truth Natural Deduction Modus Ponens Relevant Logic
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.
References
- Ackermann, W., 1956, Begründung einer strengen” Implikation, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21:113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D. Jr., 1962, The Pure Calculus of Entailment, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 27:19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D. Jr., 1975, “Entailment, the Logic of Relevance and Necessity,” vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
- Bacon, J., 1966, “Being and Existence: Two Ways of Formal Ontology,” Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
- Belnap, N. D. Jr., 1959, “The Formalization of Entailment,” Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
- Belnap, N. D. Jr., 1967, Intensional Models for First Degree Formulas, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 32:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Belnap, N. D. Jr., 1984, Return to Relevance, typescript, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
- Belnap, N. D. Jr. and Dunn, J. M., 1981, Entailment and the Disjunctive Syllogism, in: “Contemporary Philosophy: A New Survey,” G. Floistad and G. H. von Wright, eds., Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
- Brady, R. T., 1982, Non-Triviality of Dialectical Set Theory, in: “Paraconsistent Logic,” R. Routley, G. Priest and J. Norman, eds., Philosophia Verlag, Munich (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Church, A., 1951, The Weak Theory of Implication, in: “Kontrolliertes Denken, Untersuchungen zum Logikkalkül und der Logik der Einzelwissenschaften,” A. Menne, A. Wilhelmy, and H. Angstl, eds., Alber, Munich.Google Scholar
- Coffa, J. A., 1975, Fallacies of Modality, in: “Entailment, the Logic of Relevance and Necessity,” A. R. Anderson and N. D. Belnap Jr., eds., Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
- Curry, H. B. and Feys, R., 1958, “Combinatory Logic,” vol. 1, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Dunn, J. M., 1966, “The Algebra of Intensional Logics,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
- Kripke, S. A., The Problem of Entailment, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 24:324.Google Scholar
- Maximova, L., 1973, Semantics for the Calculus E of Entailment, Bulletin of the Section of Logic, Polish Academy of Sciences, 2:18–21.Google Scholar
- Martin, E. P., 1978, “The P-W Problem,” Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
- McRobbie, M. A., 1979, “A Proof Theoretic Investigation of Relevant and Modal Logics,” Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
- Meyer, R. K., 1975, Arithmetic Formulated Relevantly, typescript, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
- Meyer, R. K., 1979, Why I am Not a Relevantist, Research Paper No. 1, Logic Group, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
- Meyer, R. K. and Dunn, J. M., 1969, E, R and γ, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 34:460–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Meyer, R. K. and Martin, E. P., 1984, Logic on the Australian Plan, typescript, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
- Meyer, R. K. and McRobbie, M. A., 1982, Multisets and Relevant Implication I and II, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 60:107–139, 265-281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Meyer, R. K. and Routley, R., 1973, Classical Relevant Logics I, Studia Logica, 32:51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mortensen, C., 1983, The Validity of Disjunctive Syllogism is Not So Easily Proved, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 24:35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Routley, R., 1983, Relevantism and the Problem as to When Material Detachment and the Disjunctive Syllogism Argument Can be Correctly Used, Research Paper No. 12, Logic Group, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
- Routley, R., and Meyer, R. K., 1973, The Semantics of Entailment I, in: “Truth, Syntax and Modality,” H. Leblanc, ed., North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Routley, R. and Routley, V., 1969, A Fallacy of Modality, Nous, 3:129–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Routley, R. and Routley, V., 1972, Semantics of First Degree Entailment, Nous, 6:335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Routley, R. with Meyer, R. K., Plumwood, V. and Brady, R. T., 1984, “Relevant Logics and Their Rivals, Part 1: the Basic Philosophical and Semantical Theory,” Ridgeview, Atascadero, California.Google Scholar
- Slaney, J. K., 1982, The Irrationality of the Square Root of 2, typescript, University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
- Thistlewaite, P. B., 1984, “Automated Theorem-Proving in Non-Classical Logics,” Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
- Urquhart, A., 1972, “The Semantics of Entailment,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1985