Advertisement

A Farewell to Entailment

  • Robert K. Meyer

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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackermann, W., 1956, Begründung einer strengen” Implikation, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21:113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D. Jr., 1962, The Pure Calculus of Entailment, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 27:19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D. Jr., 1975, “Entailment, the Logic of Relevance and Necessity,” vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  4. Bacon, J., 1966, “Being and Existence: Two Ways of Formal Ontology,” Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
  5. Belnap, N. D. Jr., 1959, “The Formalization of Entailment,” Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
  6. Belnap, N. D. Jr., 1967, Intensional Models for First Degree Formulas, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 32:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belnap, N. D. Jr., 1984, Return to Relevance, typescript, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Curry, H. B. and Feys, R., 1958, “Combinatory Logic,” vol. 1, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Dunn, J. M., 1966, “The Algebra of Intensional Logics,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  14. Kripke, S. A., The Problem of Entailment, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 24:324.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Martin, E. P., 1978, “The P-W Problem,” Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  17. McRobbie, M. A., 1979, “A Proof Theoretic Investigation of Relevant and Modal Logics,” Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  18. Meyer, R. K., 1975, Arithmetic Formulated Relevantly, typescript, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  19. Meyer, R. K., 1979, Why I am Not a Relevantist, Research Paper No. 1, Logic Group, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  20. Meyer, R. K. and Dunn, J. M., 1969, E, R and γ, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 34:460–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meyer, R. K. and Martin, E. P., 1984, Logic on the Australian Plan, typescript, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Meyer, R. K. and Routley, R., 1973, Classical Relevant Logics I, Studia Logica, 32:51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mortensen, C., 1983, The Validity of Disjunctive Syllogism is Not So Easily Proved, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 24:35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Routley, R. and Routley, V., 1969, A Fallacy of Modality, Nous, 3:129–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Routley, R. and Routley, V., 1972, Semantics of First Degree Entailment, Nous, 6:335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Slaney, J. K., 1982, The Irrationality of the Square Root of 2, typescript, University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  31. Thistlewaite, P. B., 1984, “Automated Theorem-Proving in Non-Classical Logics,” Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  32. 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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert K. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.The Research School of Social SciencesAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations