Abstract
In his paper [6], Greg Restall conjectured that a logic supports a naïve comprehension scheme if and only if it is robustly contraction free, that is, if and only if no contracting connective is definable in terms of the primitive connectives of the logic. In this paper, we present infinitely many counterexamples to Restall's conjecture, in the form of purely implicational logics which are robustly contraction free, but which trivialize naïve comprehension.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Belnap, N. D., ‘A useful four-valued logic’, in J. M. Dunn and G. Epstein (eds.) Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logics, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht.
Humberstone, L., ‘Contra-classical logics’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy78, 2000, 438-474.
Meyer, R. K., and J. K. Slaney, ‘Abelian logic (From A to Z)’, in G. Priest, R. Routley, J. Norman (eds.), Paraconistent Logic. Essays on the Inconsistent, Philosophia Verlag, München, 1989.
Meyer, R.K., R. Routley, J. M. Dunn, ‘Curry's paradox’, Analysis39(3), 1979, 124-128.
Priest, G., R. Routley, J. Norman (eds), Paraconistent Logic. Essays on the Inconsistent, Philosophia Verlag, München, 1989.
Restall, G., ‘How to be reallycontraction free’, Studia Logica52, 1993. 381-391.
Shaw-Kwei, M., ‘Logical paradoxes for many valued systems’, Journal of Symbolic Logic19, 1954, 37-40.
White, R. B., ‘The consistency of the axiom of comprehension in the infinite-valued predicate logic of Łukasiewicz’, Journal of Philosophical Logic8, 1979. 509-534.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rogerson, S., Butchart, S. Naïve Comprehension and Contracting Implications. Studia Logica 71, 119–132 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016391109231
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016391109231