Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Nonmonotonic Modal Relevant Sequent Calculus

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic, Rationality, and Interaction (LORI 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10455))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Motivated by semantic inferentialism and logical expressivism proposed by Robert Brandom, in this paper, I submit a nonmonotonic modal relevant sequent calculus equipped with special operators, □ and R. The base level of this calculus consists of two different types of atomic axioms: material and relevant. The material base contains, along with all the flat atomic sequents (e.g., Γ0, p |~0 p), some non-flat, defeasible atomic sequents (e.g., Γ0, p |~0 q); whereas the relevant base consists of the local region of such a material base that is sensitive to relevance. The rules of the calculus uniquely and conservatively extend these two types of nonmonotonic bases into logically complex material/relevant consequence relations and incoherence properties, while preserving Containment in the material base and Reflexivity in the relevant base. The material extension is supra-intuitionistic, whereas the relevant extension is stronger than a logic slightly weaker than R. The relevant extension also avoids the fallacies of relevance. Although the extended material consequence relation is defeasible and insensitive to relevance, it has local regions of indefeasibility and relevance (the latter of which is marked by the relevant extension). The newly introduced operators, □ and R, codify these local regions within the same extended material consequence relation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is a product of our collaborative work with Robert Brandom’s research group. The technical results reported here are mine.

  2. 2.

    This indefeasibility box and the mechanism that makes it work are proposed by Hlobil [6].

  3. 3.

    See, for instance, Anderson & Belnap [1]. Also Mares [7].

  4. 4.

    Two more comments are in order for LLC1 and LLC2. First, it may be unnoticeable how LLC2 differs from LLC1. The only formal difference is that the left top sequent of LLC2 must be relevant, while the corresponding sequent of LLC1 need not. This requirement on LLC2 is crucial for R to codify what it is supposed to codify (see Proposition 12 below). Second, given that the indexed upward arrow is supposed to mark sets of non-defeaters of a given implication, one may find the upward arrow of the bottom sequent of LLC1 and LLC2 (i.e., ↑X[/Y]) counterintuitive. Upon closer look, however, there is no substantial harm here. After all, if the bottom sequent is non-relevant, then it is supposed to hold indefeasibly (remember that the right top sequent must be flat, and therefore is supposed to hold indefeasibly). If the bottom sequent is relevant, on the other hand, both right and left top sequents must also be relevant. Then, both indices of those top sequents (i.e., ↑X and ↑Y) must be the empty set, since PushUpUN has no application in relevant sequents. The technical advantage of the current formulations of LLC1 and LLC2 are substantial. They enable us to prove the admissibility of restricted versions of Cut in NMMR (see Proposition 7 below).

  5. 5.

    Recall that it is syntactically stipulated that X ⊆ P(L0).

  6. 6.

    See, for instance, Anderson & Belnap [1] and Mares [7].

  7. 7.

    See Anderson & Belnap [1] and Anderson, Belnap & Dunn [2].

  8. 8.

    A note on the intended reading of this biconditional: It is optional whether the left-hand sequent is relevant, while the right-hand sequent must be relevant.

References

  1. Anderson, A.R., Belnap, N.D.: Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, vol. I. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1975)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, A.R., Belnap, N.D., Dunn, J.M.: Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, vol. II. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Brandom, R.: Making It Explicit. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brandom, R.: Articulating Reasons. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brandom, R.: Between Saying and Doing: Towards an Analytic Pragmatism. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Hlobil, U.: A nonmonotonic sequent calculus for inferentialist expressivists. In: Arazim, P., Dančák, M. (eds.) The Logica Yearbook 2015, pp. 87–105. College Publications, London (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mares, E.: Relevance logic. In: Zalta, E.N., Nodelman, U., Allen, C. (eds.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2012). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/logic-relevance/. Last accessed 27 Feb 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nihon University, Funabashi, Japan

    Shuhei Shimamura

Authors
  1. Shuhei Shimamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuhei Shimamura .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands

    Alexandru Baltag

  2. Department of Philosophy, The University of Auckland, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Jeremy Seligman

  3. Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University , Sapporo, Japan

    Tomoyuki Yamada

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this paper

Cite this paper

Shimamura, S. (2017). A Nonmonotonic Modal Relevant Sequent Calculus. In: Baltag, A., Seligman, J., Yamada, T. (eds) Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10455. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_39

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_39

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55664-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55665-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships