Advertisement

Non-standard Sequent Calculi for Modal and Relevant Logics

  • Peter Bystrov
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 257)

Abstract

The search of cut-free formulations for modal, relevant, paraconsistent, etc., logics is interesting and nontrivial of itself. But it should be noted that a more fundamental goal is desirable to achieve, namely to use appropriate extensions of syntactical tools in a constructive proving of the transition from the cut-elimination theorem to the model-theoretic results. The present paper is concerned with the first as well as the second. I am trying to show that syntactical methods based on Gentzen’s ideas are powerful and promising tools in studying non-classical logics.

Keywords

Modal Logic Modal Rule Sequent Calculus Relevant Logic Main Formula 
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. [1]
    P. I. Bystrov. Normalisation of Deductions in Modal Logic, Leningrad State University, Candidate Dissertation, Lenningrad, 1981. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    P. I. Bystrov. The calculi of indexed sequents in relevant logic. Intensional Logics and Logical Structure of Theories. Abstract of the IV Finnish-Soviet Symposium in Logic,Tbilisi, pp. 31–32,1985. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. I. Bystrov. Tableaux variants of some modal and relevant logics. Bulletin of the Section of Logic,17 92–103, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. I. Bystrov. Syntactical analysis of the extensions of S4. Syntactical and Semantical Analysis of Non-extensional Logics,Nauka, Moscow, pp. 290— 305, 1989. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. B. Curry. Foundations of Mathematical Logic, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. M. Dunn. A Kripke-style semantics for R-mingle using a binary accessibility relation. Studia Logica, XXXV, 163–172, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    G. Gentzen. Investigations into Logical Deductions. The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, M. Szabo, ed. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1969.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. Giambrone. TW+ and RW+ are decidable. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 14, 235–254, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Kanger. Provability in Logic, Stockholm, 1957.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. K. Kleene. Permutability of inferences in Gentzen’s calculi. LK and LI Memor. Americ. Math. Soci., 10, 1–26, 1952.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. K. Kleene. Introduction to Metamathematics, Princeton, NJ, 1952.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. A. Kripke. Semantical analysis of modal logic I. Normal modal propositional calculi, Zeitschriftfur Mathematishce Logik and Grundlagen der Mathematik, 9, 67–96, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. Ono and Y. Komori. Logics without the contraction rule. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 169–201, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    V. M. Popov. On decidability of relevant logic RAO. Modal and Intensional Logics,pp. 115–119, Moscow, 1978. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    O.F. Serebriannikov. Some generalisations of the normal form theorem in quantified modal logic. Modal and Intensional Logics and its Applications to the Problems of Methodology of Sciences,pp. 88–99, Nauka, Moscow, 1984. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    O.F. Serebriannikov and P. I. Bystrov. On the criteria of quality of logical deductions in modal logic. Logic and Philosophical Categories,pp. 97–112, Leningrad, 1982. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    V. A. Smirnov. Formal Deduction and Logical Calculi, Nauka, Moscow, 1972. (In Russian)Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    V.A.Smirnov. Sequent variants of the logical systems with strong and relevant implication.Theory of Logical Deduction,Moscow,1974.(In Russian)Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    K. Schütte. Vollstandige system modaler und intuitionistucher logik. Ergebinsse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, 42, 1968.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Urquhart. The undecidability of entailment and relevant implication. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49, 1059–1073, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Bystrov

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations