Once upon a time, modal logic was castigated because it ‘had no semantics.’ Kripke, Hintikka, Kanger, and others changed all that. In a similar way, when Relevant Logic was introduced by Anderson and Belnap, it too was castigated for ‘having no semantics.’ The present overview marks a culmination of that effort. The semantic approach described here brings together a number of hitherto disparate efforts to set out formal systems for logics of relevant implication and entailment. It also makes clear (despite (...) some of our hopes and utterances) that the One True Logic does not exist. This is as true for relevant logics as Kripke et al., showed it to be for modal logics. In both cases, subtle (and not so subtle) variations on semantical postulates produce different logics in the same family. The question of which semantical postulates are correct makes no sense without further context, i.e., the questioner needs to answer the question: Correct for what? The question that does remain is: What motivates the relevant family of logics? And this is the question that is the main job for this chapter to investigate. (shrink)

A 'Kripke-style' semantics is given for combinatory logic using frames with a ternary accessibility relation, much as in the Tourley-Meyer semantics for relevance logic. We prove by algebraic means a completeness theorem for combinatory logic, by proving a representation theorem for 'combinatory posets.' A philosophical interpretation is given of the models, showing that an element of a combinatory poset can be understood simultaneously as a set of states and as a set of actions on states. This double interpretation allows for (...) one such element to be applied to another . Application turns out to be modeled the same way as 'fusion' in relevance logic.We also introduce 'dual combinators' that apply from the right. We then explore relationships to some well-known substructural logics, showing that each can be embedded into the structurally free. non-associative Lambek calculus, with the embedding taking a theorem ω to a statement of the form Γ ⊨ ω, where Γ is some fusion of the combinators needed to justify the structural assumptions of the given substructural logic. This builds on earlier ideas from Belnap and Meyer about a Gentzen system wherein structural rules are replaced with rules for introducing combinators. We develop such a system and prove a cut theorem. (shrink)

The paper considers certain extensions of the system LC introduced in Dunn & Meyer 1997. LC is a structurally free system , but it has combinators as formulas in the place of structural rules. We consider two ways to extend LC with conjunction and disjunction depending on whether they distribute over each other or not. We prove the elimination theorem for the systems. At the end of the paper we give a Routley-Meyer style semantics for the distributive extension, including some (...) new definitions and an algorithm which are used in proving a representation theorem in general, i.e., for arbitrary combinators. (shrink)

We define dual and symmetric combinatory calculi (inequational and equational ones), and prove their consistency. Then, we introduce algebraic and set theoretical relational and operational - semantics, and prove soundness and completeness. We analyze the relationship between these logics, and argue that inequational dual logics are the best suited to model computation.

Modus ponens provides the central theme. There are laws, of the form A→C. A logic L collects such laws. Any datum A provides input to the laws of L. The central ternary relation R relates theories L,T and U, where U consists of all of the outputs C got by applying modus ponens to major premises from L and minor premises from T. Underlying this relation is a modus ponens product operation on theories L and T, whence RLTU iff LTU. (...) These ideas have been expressed, especially with Routley, as worlds semantics for relevant and other substructural logics.Worlds are best demythologized as theories, subject to truth-functional and other constraints. The chief constraint is that theories are taken as closed under logical entailment, which clearly begs the question if we are using the semantics to determine which theory L is Logic itself. Instead we draw the modal logicians’ conclusion—there are many substructural logics, each with its appropriate ternary relational postulates.Each logic L gives rise to a Calculus of L-theories, on which particular candidate logical axioms have the combinatorial properties expected from the well-known Curry–Howard isomorphism . We apply their bubbling lemma, updating the Fools Model of Combinatory Logic at the pure → level for the system BT. We make fusion an explicit connective, proving a combinator correspondence theorem. Having taken relevant → as a left residual for , we explore its right residual mate →r. Finally we concentrate on and prove a finite model property for the classical minimal relevant logic CB, a conservative extension of the minimal positive relevant logic B+. (shrink)

This paper discusses the relation between the minimal positive relevant logic B and intersection and union type theories. There is a marvelous coincidence between these very differently motivated research areas. First, we show a perfect fit between the Intersection Type Discipline ITD and the tweaking BT of B, which saves implication and conjunction but drops disjunction . The filter models of the -calculus (and its intimate partner Combinatory Logic CL) of the first author and her coauthors then become theory models (...) of these calculi. (The logician's "theory" is the algebraist's "filter".) The coincidence extends to a dual interpretation of key particles—the subtype translates to provable , type intersection to conjunction , function space to implication, and whole domain to the (trivially added but trivial) truth T. This satisfying ointment contains a fly. For it is right, proper, and to be expected that type union should correspond to the logical disjunction of B. But the simulation of functional application by a fusion (or modus ponens product) operation on theories leaves the key Bubbling lemma of work on ITD unprovable for the -prime theories now appropriate for the modeling. The focus of the present paper lies in an appeal to Harrop theories which are (a) prime and (b) closed under fusion. A version of the Bubbling lemma is then proved for Harrop theories, which accordingly furnish a model of and CL. (shrink)

Combinator logics are a broad family of substructual logics that are formed by extending the basic relevant logic B with axioms that correspond closely to the reduction rules of proper combinators in combinatory logic. In the Routley-Meyer relational semantics for relevant logic each such combinator logic is characterized by the class of frames that meet a first-order condition that also directly corresponds to the same combinator's reduction rule. A second family of logics is also introduced that extends B with the (...) addition of propositional constants that correspond to combinators. These are characterized by relational frames that meet first-order conditions that reflect the structures of the combinators themselves. (shrink)

The system B+ is the minimal positive relevant logic. B+ is trivially extended to B+T on adding a greatest truth (Church constant) T. If we leave ∨ out of the formation apparatus, we get the fragment B∧T. It is known that the set of ALL B∧T theories provides a good model for the combinators CL at Level-I, which is the theory level. Restoring ∨ to get back B+T was not previously fruitful at Level-I, because the set of all B+T theories (...) is NOT a model of CL. It was to be expected from semantic completeness arguments for relevant logics that basic combinator laws would hold when restricted to PRIME B+T theories. Overcoming some previous difficulties, we show that this is the case, at Level I. But this does not form a model for CL. This paper also looks for corresponding results at Level-II, where we deal with sets of theories that we call propositions. We adapt work by Ghilezan to note that at Level-II also there is a model of CL in B∧T propositions. However, the corresponding result for B+T propositions extends smoothly to Level-II only in part. Specifically, only some of the basic combinator laws are proved here. We accordingly leave some work for the reader. (shrink)