Skip to main content
Log in

Relevant Restricted Quantification

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The paper reviews a number of approaches for handling restricted quantification in relevant logic, and proposes a novel one. This proceeds by introducing a novel kind of enthymematic conditional.

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

Access this article

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

  • Beall, JC. (2004): Curry's Paradox, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2004/entries/curry-paradox/.

  • Belnap, N. D. (1973): Restricted quantification and conditional assertion, Ch. 2, in H. Leblanc (ed.), Truth, Syntax and Modality, North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam.

  • Brady, R. T. (2003): Relevant Logic and their Rivals, Vol. II, Ashgate, Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. (1992): Relevant implication and conditional assertion, in A. Anderson, N. D. Belnap and J. M. Dunn (eds.), Entailment, Vol. II, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, pp. 472–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, N. (1968): The propositional logic of ordinary discourse, Inquiry 11, 295–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R. K. and Routley, R. (1973): Classical relevant logics, I, Stud. Log. 32, 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G. (1987): In Contradiction, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G. (2001): Introduction to Non-Classical Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restall, G. (1993): How to be really contraction-free, Stud. Log. 52, 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restall, G. (1995): Four-valued semantics for relevant logics (and some of their rivals), J. Philos. Logic 24, 139–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restall, G. (2000): Introduction to Substructural Logics, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Routley, R. (1984): The American plan completed: alternative classical-style semantics, without stars, for relevant and paraconsistent logics, Stud. Log. 43, 131–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvan, R. and Nola, R. (1991): Confirmation without paradoxes, in G. Schurz and G. Dorn (eds.), Advances in Scientific Philosophy, Rodophi, Amsterdam, pp. 5–44; reprinted as ch. 10 of D. Hyde and G. Priest (eds.), Sociative Logics and their Applications: Essays by the Late Richard Sylvan, Ashgate, Aldershot (2000).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to JC Beall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beall, J., Brady, R.T., Hazen, A.P. et al. Relevant Restricted Quantification. J Philos Logic 35, 587–598 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-005-9008-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-005-9008-5

Keywords

Navigation