Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T08:10:12.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Natural deduction and sequent calculus for intuitionistic relevant logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Neil Tennant*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

Extract

Relevance logic began in an attempt to avoid the so-called fallacies of relevance. These fallacies can be in implicational form or in deductive form. For example, Lewis's first paradox can beset a system in implicational form, in that the system contains as a theorem the formula (A & ∼A) → B; or it can beset it in deductive form, in that the system allows one to deduce B from the premisses A, ∼A.

Relevance logic in the tradition of Anderson and Belnap has been almost exclusively concerned with characterizing a relevant conditional. Thus it has attacked the problem of relevance in its implicational form. Accordingly for a relevant conditional → one would not have as a theorem the formula (A & ∼A) → B. Other theorems even of minimal logic would also be lacking. Perhaps most important among these is the formula (A → (BA)). It is also a well-known feature of their system R that it lacks the intuitionistically valid formula ((AB) & ∼A) → B (disjunctive syllogism).

But it is not the case that any relevance logic worth the title even has to concern itself with the conditional, and hence with the problem in its implicational form. The problem arises even for a system without the conditional primitive. It would still be an exercise in relevance logic, broadly construed, to formulate a deductive system free of the fallacies of relevance in deductive form even if this were done in a language whose only connectives were, say, &, ∨ and ∼. Solving the problem of relevance in this more basic deductive form is arguably a precondition for solving it for the conditional, if we suppose (as is reasonable) that the relevant conditional is to be governed by anything like the rule of conditional proof.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D. [1975], Entailment, vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Došen, K. [1981], A reduction of classical propositional logic to the conjunction-negation fragment of an cintuitionistic relevant logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 10, pp. 394408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. A. E. [1977] (with the assistance of Minio, R.), Elements of intuitionism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Johansson, I. [1936], Der Minimalkalkül, ein reduzierter intuitionistischer Formalismus, Compositio Mathematica, vol. 4, pp. 119136.Google Scholar
Gentzen, G. [1969], The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen (edited by Szabo, M. E.), North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Prawitz, D. [1965], Natural deduction: a proof-theoretical study, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Tennant, N. [1978], Natural logic, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Tennant, N. [1979], Entailment and proofs, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 79, pp. 167189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennant, N. [1980], A proof-theoretic approach to entailment, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 9, pp. 185209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennant, N. [1984], Perfect validity, entailment and paraconsistency, Studia Logica, vol. 43, pp. 179198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar