Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to bereally contraction free

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A logic is said to becontraction free if the rule fromA → (A →B) toA →B is not truth preserving. It is well known that a logic has to be contraction free for it to support a non-trivial naïve theory of sets or of truth. What is not so well known is that if there isanother contracting implication expressible in the language, the logic still cannot support such a naïve theory. A logic is said to berobustly contraction free if there is no such operator expressible in its language. We show that a large class of finitely valued logics are each not robustly contraction free, and demonstrate that some other contraction free logics fail to be robustly contraction free. Finally, the sublogics of Łω (with the standard connectives) are shown to be robustly contraction free.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. N. D. Belnap,A Useful Four-Valued Logic, in J. M. Dunn and G. Epstein (eds.) Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logics, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht.

  2. J. M. Dunn,Intuitive Semantics for First-Degree Entailments and ‘Coupled Trees’ Philosophical Studies 29 (1976), pp. 139–168.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. M. Dunn, andG. Epstein, (eds)Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logics D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. K. Meyer, S. Giambrone andR. T. Brady,Where Gamma Fails Studia Logica 43 (1984), pp. 247–256.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. K. Meyer andJ. K. Slaney,Abelian Logic (from A to Z) in G. Priest, R. Routley and J. Norman (eds)Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent Philosophia Verlag, München, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Priest, R. Routley andJ. Norman (eds),Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent Philosophia Verlag, München, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Shaw-Kwei,Logical Paradoxes for Many-Valued Systems Journal of Symbolic Logic 19 (1954), pp. 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. K. Slaney,The Implications of Paraconsistency Proceedings of IJCAI-91, Vol.2 (1991), pp. 1052–1057.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. K. Slaney, T. Surendonk andR. Girle,Time, Truth and Logic, Australian National University, Automated Reasoning Project Technical Report, TR-ARP-11/89, 1989.

  10. R. B. White,The Consistency of the Axiom of Comprehension in the Infinite-Valued Predicate Logic of Łukasiewicz Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1979), pp. 509–534.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department, The University of Queensland, 4072, Queensland, Australia

    Greg Restall

Authors
  1. Greg Restall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Restall, G. How to bereally contraction free. Stud Logica 52, 381–391 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01057653

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01057653

Keywords

Search

Navigation