Abstract
This paper gives an outline of three different approaches to the four-valued semantics for relevant logics (and other non-classical logics in their vicinity). The first approach borrows from the ‘Australian Plan’ semantics, which uses a unary operator ‘⋆’ for the evaluation of negation. This approach can model anything that the two-valued account can, but at the cost of relying on insights from the Australian Plan. The second approach is natural, well motivated, independent of the Australian Plan, and it provides a semantics for the contraction-free relevant logicC (orRW). Unfortunately, its approach seems to model little else. The third approach seems to capture a wide range of formal systems, but at the time of writing, lacks a completeness proof.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Belnap, N. D., Jr. (1977), ‘A Useful Four-Valued Logic,’ in J.M Dunn and G. Epstein (eds),Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, Dordrecht, 8–37.
Belnap, N. D., Jr. (1977), ‘How a Computer Should Think,’ in G. Ryle (ed.),Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, Oriel Press, 30–55.
Dunn, J. M. (1976), ‘Intuitive Semantics for First-Degree Entailment and ‘Coupled Trees’,’Philosophical Studies 29, 149–168.
Priest, G. (1979), ‘Logic of Paradox’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 219–241.
Priest, G. and R. Sylvan (1992), ‘Simplified Semantics for Basic Relevant Logics’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 21, 217–232.
Restall, G. (1993), ‘Simplified Semantics for Relevant Logics (and Some of Their Rivals)’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 22, 481–511.
Routley, R., V. Plumwood, R. Meyer and R. Brady (1982),Relevant Logics and their Rivals, Ridgeview.
Slaney, J. (1990), ‘A General Logic’,Australian Journal of Philosophy 68, 74–88.
Slaney, J. (1989), ‘Finite Models for some Non-Classical Logics’, Technical Report TR-ARP-2/90, Automated Reasoning Project, Australian National University, Canberra.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Restall, G. Four-valued semantics for relevant logics (and some of their rivals). J Philos Logic 24, 139–160 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048529
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048529