2018
DOI: 10.1007/s11225-018-9791-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intermediate Logics Admitting a Structural Hypersequent Calculus

Abstract: We characterise the intermediate logics which admit a cut-free hypersequent calculus of the form HLJ + R, where HLJ is the hypersequent counterpart of the sequent calculus LJ for propositional intuitionistic logic, and R is a set of so-called structural hypersequent rules, i.e., rules not involving any logical connectives. The characterisation of this class of intermediate logics is presented both in terms of the algebraic and the relational semantics for intermediate logics. We discuss various-positive as wel… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Using syntactic methods, an analogous result for residuated lattices was given in [9]. These results overlap in the setting of Heyting algebras (see [22]), and can be used to provide examples of stable classes that are closed under MacNeille completions based on omitting finite projective distributive lattices. However, since the lattices D ⊕ 1 and 0 ⊕ D ⊕ 1 are not projective in distributive lattices, the results of Theorem 6.3(2) do not fall in the scope of the results of [9].…”
Section: Stable Universal Classes and Stable Intermediate Logicsmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Using syntactic methods, an analogous result for residuated lattices was given in [9]. These results overlap in the setting of Heyting algebras (see [22]), and can be used to provide examples of stable classes that are closed under MacNeille completions based on omitting finite projective distributive lattices. However, since the lattices D ⊕ 1 and 0 ⊕ D ⊕ 1 are not projective in distributive lattices, the results of Theorem 6.3(2) do not fall in the scope of the results of [9].…”
Section: Stable Universal Classes and Stable Intermediate Logicsmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Proof. The first three statements can be found in [39] and [38, Chap. 2], the fourth in [9], and the last in [38,Chap.…”
Section: Boolean Products and Related Sheavesmentioning
confidence: 99%