Putting the stars in the their places

Logan, Shay Allen

doi:10.1002/tht3.462

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Theory construction is used both by Logan and by Mares to motivate relevant logics. Logan (2020Logan ( , 2022Logan ( , 2024, developing ideas from Beall (2017Beall ( , 2018, argues for a relevant logic via the nature of theories. 50 Logic is a universal theory-building toolbox, which can be used to construct theories of all sorts.…”

Section: Theory Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Routes to relevance: Philosophies of relevant logics

Standefer

2024

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relevant logics are a family of non‐classical logics characterized by the behavior of their implication connectives. Unlike some other non‐classical logics, such as intuitionistic logic, there are multiple philosophical views motivating relevant logics. Further, different views seem to motivate different logics. In this article, we survey five major views motivating the adoption of relevant logics: Use Criterion, sufficiency, meaning containment, theory construction, and truthmaking. We highlight the philosophical differences as well as the different logics they support. We end with some questions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Theory Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Logan (2020, 2022, 2024), developing ideas from Beall (2017, 2018), argues for a relevant logic via the nature of theories 50 . Logic is a universal theory‐building toolbox, which can be used to construct theories of all sorts.…”

Section: Theory Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routes to relevance: Philosophies of relevant logics

Standefer

2024

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Subminimal Negation on the Australian Plan

Tabakci

2022

J Philos Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frame semantics for negation on the Australian Plan accommodates many different negations, but it falls short on accommodating subminimal negation when the language contains conjunction and disjunction. In this paper, I will present a multi-relational frame semantics –multi-incompatibility frame semantics– that can accommodate subminimal negation. I will first argue that multi-incompatibility frames are in accordance with the philosophical motivations behind negation on the Australian Plan, namely its modal and exclusion-expressing nature. Then, I will prove the soundness and completeness results of a subminimal logic that consists of the multi-incompatibility semantics and a proof system with operational rules that characterize subminimal negation, conjunction and disjunction. Lastly, I will prove some key correspondence theorems that relate frame conditions to certain principles that are associated with stronger negations, which will give rise to a new kite of negations that includes subminimal negation.

show abstract

Putting the stars in the their places

Abstract: This paper presents a new semantics for the weak relevant logic DW that makes the role of the infamous Routley star more explicable. Central to this rewriting is combining aspects of both the American and Australian plan for understanding negations in relevance logics.

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

Routes to relevance: Philosophies of relevant logics

Routes to relevance: Philosophies of relevant logics

Subminimal Negation on the Australian Plan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About