In Entailment, Anderson and Belnap motivated their modification E of Ackermann’s strenge Implikation Π Π’ as a logic of relevance and necessity. The kindred system R was seen as relevant but not as modal. Our systems of Peano arithmetic R# and omega arithmetic R## were based on R to avoid fallacies of relevance. But problems arose as to which arithmetic sentences were (relevantly) true. Here we base analogous systems on E to solve those problems. Central to motivating E is the (...) rejection of fallacies of modality. Our slogan here for this is, “No diamonds entail any boxes.” Form the strenge Peano arithmetic E# like R#, adding appropriate forms of the Peano axioms to Ackermann’s E.. (shrink)

I note that the logics of the relevant group most closely tied to the research programme in paraconsistency are those without the contraction postulate(A.AB).AB and its close relatives. As a move towards gaining control of the contraction-free systems I show that they are prime (that wheneverA B is a theorem so is eitherA orB). The proof is an extension of the metavaluational techniques standardly used for analogous results about intuitionist logic or the relevant positive logics.

We collect together some misgivings about the logic R of relevant inplication, and then give support to a weak entailment logic $DJ^{d}$ . The misgivings centre on some recent negative results concerning R, the conceptual vacuousness of relevant implication, and the treatment of classical logic. We then rectify this situation by introducing an entailment logic based on meaning containment, rather than meaning connection, which has a better relationship with classical logic. Soundness and completeness results are proved for $DJ^{d}$ with respect (...) to a content semantics, which embraces the concept of meaning containment. (shrink)

The standard Hilbert-style of axiomatic system yields the assertion of axioms and, via the use of rules, the assertion of theorems. However, there has been little work done on the corresponding axiomatic rejection of non-theorems. Such Hilbert-style rejection would be achieved by the inclusion of certain rejection-axioms (r-axioms) and, by use of rejection-rules (r-rules), the establishment of rejection-theorems (r-theorems). We will call such a proof a rejection-proof (r-proof). The ideal to aim for would be for the theorems and r-theorems to (...) bemutually exclusive and exhaustive. That is, if a formula A is a theorem then it is not an r-theorem, and if A is a non-theorem then it is an r-theorem. In this paper, I present a rejecion system for the first-degree formulae of a large number of relevant logics. (shrink)

The main aim is to extend the range of logics which solve the set-theoretic paradoxes, over and above what was achieved by earlier work in the area. In doing this, the paper also provides a link between metacomplete logics and those that solve the paradoxes, by finally establishing that all M1-metacomplete logics can be used as a basis for naive set theory. In doing so, we manage to reach logics that are very close in their axiomatization to that of the (...) logic R of relevant implication. A further aim is the use of metavaluations in a new context, expanding the range of application of this novel technique, already used in the context of negation and arithmetic, thus providing an alternative to traditional model theoretic approaches. (shrink)

The?-admissibility is one of the most important problems in the realm of relevant logics. To prove the 7-admissibility, either the method of normal models or the method using metavaluations may be employed. The?-admissibility of a wide class of relevant modal logics has been discussed in Part I based on a former method, but the?-admissibility based on metavaluations has not hitherto been fully considered. Sahlqvist axioms are well known as a means of expressing generalized forms of formulas with modal operators. This (...) paper shows that? is admissible for relevant modal logics with restricted Sahlqvist axioms in terms of the method using metavaluations. (shrink)