Abstract
This paper first shows that some versions of the logic R of Relevance do not satisfy the relevance principle introduced by Anderson and Belnap, the principle of which is generally accepted as the principle for relevance. After considering several possible (but defective) improvements of the relevance principle, this paper presents a new relevance principle for (three versions of) R, and explains why this principle is better than the original and others.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, A.R., & Belnap, N.D. (1962). The pure calculus of entailment. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 27, 19–52.
Anderson, A.R., & Belnap, N.D. (1975). Entailment: The logic of relevance and necessity (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Anderson, A.R., Belnap, N.D., Dunn, J.M. (1992). Entailment: The logic of relevance and necessity (Vol. 2). Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Beall, J.C., & Restall, G. (2006). Logical pluralism. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Brady, R.T. (Ed.) (2003). Relevant logics and their rivals (Vol. 2). Ashgate: Aldershot.
Czelakowski, J. (2001). Protoalgebraic logics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dunn, J.M. (1970). Algebraic completeness for R-Mingle and its extension. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 35, 1–13.
Dunn, J.M. (1986). Relevance logic and entailment. In D. Gabbay, & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (pp. 117–224). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dunn, J.M. (2000). Partiality and its dual. Studia Logica, 66, 5–40.
Dunn, J.M., & Restall, G. (2002). Relevance logic. In D. Gabbay, & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 6, 2nd ed., pp. 1–128). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Galatos, N., Jipsen, P., Kowalski, T., Ono, H. (2007). Residuated lattices: An algebraic glimpse at substructural logics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Halldén, S. (1951). On the semantic non-completeness of certain Lewis calculi. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 16, 127–129.
Mamide, N. (2002). Substructural logics with mingle. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 11, 227–249.
Mares, E.D. (2004). Relevant logic. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Mares, E.D. (2004). “Four-valued” semantics for the relevant logic R. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33, 327–341.
Metcalfe, G. (2004). Uninorm based logics. In Proceedings of EUROFUSE, 2004 (pp. 85–99). Exit Press.
Metcalfe, G., & Montagna, F. (2007). Substructural fuzzy logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 72, 834–864.
Meyer, R.K. (1973). Intuitionism, entailment, negation. In H. Lebranc (Ed.), Truth, syntax, and modality (pp. 168–198). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Meyer, R.K. (1974). New axiomatics for relevant logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3, 53–86.
Meyer, R.K., Giambrone, S., Brady, R.T. (1984). Where gamma fails. Studia Logica, 43, 247–256.
Meyer, R.K., & Routley, R. (1974). Classical relevant logics. Studia Logica, 33, 183–194.
Ono, H. (1998). Proof-theoretic methods in nonclassical logic—an introduction. MJS Memoirs, 2, 207–254.
Read, S. (1988). Relevant logic. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Restall, G. (2000). An Introduction to substructural logics. New York: Routledge.
Routley, R., & Meyer, R.K. (1972). The semantics of entailment (III). Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1, 192–208.
Routley, R., & Meyer, R.K. (1973). The semantics of entailment (I). In H. Lebranc (Ed.), Truth, syntax, and modality (pp. 199-243). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Routley, R., Meyer, R.K., Plumwood, V., Brady, R.T. (1982). Relevant logics and their rivals (Vol. 1). California: Ridgeview.
Urquhart, A. (1988). Review on relevant logics and their rivals. Studia Logica, 47, 169–171.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, E. R and Relevance Principle Revisited. J Philos Logic 42, 767–782 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9247-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9247-1