David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30 (2):207-223 (1989)
A practical system of reasoning must be both correct and efficient. An efficient system which contains a large body of information can not search for the proof of a conclusion from all information available. Efficiency requires that deduction of the conclusion be carried out in a modular way using only a relatively small and quickly identified subset of the total information. One might assume that data modularity is incompatible with correctness, where a system is correct for a logic L iff it proves exactly what is valid in L. We point out that modularity and correctness are indeed incompatible if the logic in question is classical. On the other hand, the two desiderata are compatible for relevance logic. Furthermore, Horn clause resolution theorem proving is modular (this helps explain its relative efficiency) and the logic for which it is correct is relevance logic not classical logic
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gary F. Marcus (2002). What Can Developmental Disorders Tell Us About Modularity? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):762-763.
William Marslen-Wilson & Lorraine Komisarjevsky Tyler (1987). Against Modularity. In Modularity In Knowledge Representation And Natural- Language Understanding. Cambridge: Mit Press.
Vincent Bergeron & Mohan Matthen (2008). Assembling the Emotions. In Luc Faucher & Christine Tappolet (eds.), The Modularity of Emotions. University of Calgary Press. 185-212.
Edwin David Mares (2004). Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Interpretation. Cambridge Univeristy Press.
Peter Carruthers (2003). Moderately Massive Modularity. In Anthony O'Hear (ed.), Mind and Persons. Cambridge University Press. 67-89.
Claudia Lorena García (2007). Cognitive Modularity, Biological Modularity and Evolvability. Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution and Cognition (KLI) 2 (1):62-73.
Luc Faucher & Christine Tappolet (2007). Introduction: Modularity and the Nature of Emotions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (5S).
Robert M. Harnish (1995). Modularity and Speech Acts. Pragmatics and Cognition 3 (1):1-29.
Robert A. Wilson (2008). What Computers (Still, Still) Can't Do: Jerry Fodor on Computation and Modularity. In Robert J. Stainton (ed.), New Essays in Philosophy of Language and Mind.
Neil Stillings (1987). Modularity and Naturalism in Theories of Vision. In Modularity In Knowledge Representation. Cambridge: Mit Press.
Clark H. Barrett & R. Kurzban (2006). Modularity in Cognition: Framing the Debate. Psychological Review 113:628-647.
Kazimierz Swirydowicz (1999). There Exist Exactly Two Maximal Strictly Relevant Extensions of the Relevant Logic R. Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (3):1125-1154.
Robert A. Wilson (2005). What Computers (Still, Still) Can't Do: Jerry Fodor on Computation and Modularity. Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supp 30:407-425.
Ivan Varzinczak (2006). What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in Dynamic Logic. Dissertation, Université Paul Sabatier
Ryo Kashima & Norihiro Kamide (1999). Substructural Implicational Logics Including the Relevant Logic E. Studia Logica 63 (2):181-212.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads3 ( #290,560 of 1,099,016 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #114,795 of 1,099,016 )
How can I increase my downloads?