This essay discusses rules and semantic clauses relating to Substitution—Leibniz’s law in the conjunctive-implicational form s=t ∧ A(s) → A(t)—as these are put forward in Priest’s books "In Contradiction" and "An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is." The stated rules and clauses are shown to be too weak in some cases and too strong in others. New ones are presented and shown to be correct. Justification for the various rules are probed and it is argued that Substitution ought (...) to fail. (shrink)

It is known that many relevant logics can be conservatively extended by the truth constant known as the Ackermann constant. It is also known that many relevant logics can be conservatively extended by Boolean negation. This essay, however, shows that a range of relevant logics with the Ackermann constant cannot be conservatively extended by a Boolean negation.

Many relevant logics can be conservatively extended by Boolean negation. Mares showed, however, that E is a notable exception. Mares’ proof is by and large a rather involved model-theoretic one. This paper presents a much easier proof-theoretic proof which not only covers E but also generalizes so as to also cover relevant logics with a primitive modal operator added. It is shown that from even very weak relevant logics augmented by a weak K-ish modal operator, and up to the strong (...) relevant logic R with a S5 modal operator, all fail to be conservatively extended by Boolean negation. The proof, therefore, also covers Meyer and Mares’ proof that NR—R with a primitive S4-modality added—also fails to be conservatively extended by Boolean negation. (shrink)

Priest argued in Fusion and Confusion (Priest in Topoi 34(1):55–61, 2015a) for a new concept of logical consequence over the relevant logic B, one where premises my be “confused” together. This paper develops Priest’s idea. Whereas Priest uses a substructural proof calculus, this paper provides a Hilbert proof calculus for it. Using this it is shown that Priest’s consequence relation is weaker than the standard Hilbert consequence relation for B, but strictly stronger than Anderson and Belnap’s original relevant notion of (...) consequence. Unlike the latter, however, Priest’s consequence relation does not satisfy a variant of the variable sharing property. This paper shows that how it can be modified so as to do so. Priest’s consequence relation turns out to be surprisingly weak in some respects. The prospects of strengthening it is raised and discussed in a broader philosophical context. (shrink)

Val Plumwood and Richard Sylvan argued from their joint paper The Semantics of First Degree Entailment and onward that the variable sharing property is but a mere consequence of a good entailment relation, indeed they viewed it as a mere negative test of adequacy of such a relation, the property itself being a rather philosophically barren concept. Such a relation is rather to be analyzed as a sufficiency relation free of any form of premise suppression. Suppression of premises, therefore, gained (...) center stage. Despite this, however, no serious attempt was ever made at analyzing the concept. This paper shows that their suggestions for how to understand it, either as the Anti-Suppression Principle or as the Joint Force Principle, turn out to yield properties strictly weaker than that of variable sharing. A suggestion for how to understand some of their use of the notion of suppression which clearly is not in line with these two mentioned principles is given, and their arguments to the effect that the Anderson and Belnap logics T, E and R are suppressive are shown to be both technically and philosophically wanting. Suppression-freedom, it is argued, cannot do the job Plumwood and Sylvan intended it to do. (shrink)