Logic for two: The semantics of distributive substructural logics

  • John Slaney
  • Robert Meyer
Accepted Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1244)


This is an account of the semantics of a family of logics whose paradigm member is the relevant logic R of Anderson and Belnap. The formal semantic theory is well worn, having been discussed in the literature of such logics for over a quarter of a century. What is new here is the explication of that formal machinery in a way intended to make sense of it for those who have claimed it to be esoteric, ‘merely formal’ or downright impenetrable. Our further goal is to put these logics in the service of practical reasoning systems, since the basic concept of our treatment is that of an agent a reasoning to conclusions using as assumptions the theory of agent b. This concept requires true multi-agent reasoning, as opposed to what is merely reasoning by multiple agents.


Information State Modal Logic Belief Revision Logical Truth Epistemic 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A.R. Anderson, N.D. Belnap and J.M. Dunn, Entailment, vol. II. Princeton, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H.P. Barendregt, M. Coppo and M. Dezani-Ciancaglini, A Filter Lambda Model and the Completeness of Type Assignment. Journal of Symbolic Logic 48 (1983) 931–940.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Dezani-Ciancaglini and J.R. Hindley, Intersection Types for Combinatory Logic. Theoretical Computer Science 100 (1992) 303–324.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.M. Dunn, Relevance Logic and Entailment. Gabbay & Günthner (ed) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 3. Dordrecht, 1986, 117–229.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Friedman and R.K. Meyer, Whither Relevant Arithmetic? Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (1992) 824–831.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Giambrone, Real Reduced Models for Relevant Logics without WI. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33 (1992) 442–449Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E.D. Mares and R.K. Meyer, The Admissibility of Gamma in R4. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33 (1992) 197–206.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.K. Meyer, Intuitionism, Entailment, Negation. Leblanc (ed) Truth, Syntax and Modality. Amsterdam, 1973, 168–198.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.K. Meyer and E.D. Mares, The Semantics of Entailment O, Kosta Došen & Peter Schroeder-Heister (Eds.), Substructural Logics, Oxford, OUP, 1993 239–258.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.K. Meyer and F.R. Routley, Algebraic Analysis of Entailment 1, Logique et Analyse 15 (1972) 407–428.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F.R. Routley and R.K. Meyer, Semantics of Entailment. Leblanc (ed) Truth, Syntax and Modality. Amsterdam, 1973, 199–243.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F.R. Routley, R.K. Meyer, R.T. Brady and V. Plumwood, Relevant Logics and their Rivals, Atascadero, CA, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.K. Slaney, Reduced Models for Relevant Logics Without WI, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 28 (1987) 395–407.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.K. Slaney, A General Logic, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 68 (1990) 74–88.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.K. Slaney and G.A. Restall, Realistic Belief Revision. Proc. Second World Conference on the Fundamentals of AI. Paris, 1995, 367–378.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Slaney
    • 1
  • Robert Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations