In this article, I consider the positive logic of Boolean groups (i.e. Abelian groups where every non-identity element has order 2), where these are taken as frames for an operational semantics à la Urquhart. I call this logic BG. It is shown that the logic over the smallest nontrivial Boolean group, taken as a frame, is identical to the positive fragment of a quasi-relevance logic that was developed by Robles and Méndez (an extension of this result where negation is included (...) is also discussed). It is proved that BG satisfies the variable sharing property and is Halldén complete, while failing to satisfy the disjunction property. Sound and complete subscripted tableaux are presented for BG. An axiomatization (in the positive language extended with fusion) is presented, which is sound with respect to BG and, with respect to a related ternary relational semantics, complete; the problem of identifying a complete axiomatization for BG itself is left open. Connections between BG and the quasi-relevance logic KR are also discussed. (shrink)

We present a new frame semantics for positive relevant and substructural propositional logics. This frame semantics is both a generalisation of Routley–Meyer ternary frames and a simplification of them. The key innovation of this semantics is the use of a single accessibility relation to relate collections of points to points. Different logics are modeled by varying the kinds of collections used: they can be sets, multisets, lists or trees. We show that collection frames on trees are sound and complete for (...) the basic positive distributive substructural logic $\mathsf {B}^+$, that collection frames on multisets are sound and complete for $\mathsf {RW}^+$ (the relevant logic $\mathsf {R}^+$, without contraction, or equivalently, positive multiplicative and additive linear logic with distribution for the additive connectives), and that collection frames on sets are sound for the positive relevant logic $\mathsf {R}^+$. The completeness of set frames for $\mathsf {R}^+$ is, currently, an open question. (shrink)

There appears to be few, if any, limits on what sorts of logical connectives can be added to a given logic. One source of potential limitations is the motivating ideology associated with a logic. While extraneous to the logic, the motivating ideology is often important for the development of formal and philosophical work on that logic, as is the case with intuitionistic logic. One family of logics for which the philosophical ideology is important is the family of relevant logics. In (...) this paper, I explore the limits of what a relevant connective is, showing how some basic criteria motivated by the ideology of relevant logicians provide robust limits on potential connectives. These criteria provide some plausible necessary conditions on being a relevant connective. (shrink)