On the {↔, ∼} -reduct of the intuitionistic consequence operation
Studia Logica 40 (1):55 - 66 (1981)
| Abstract | The intuitionistic consequence operation restricted to the language with (equivalence) and (negation) as the only connectives is axiomatized by means of a finite set of sequential rules of inference. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesVladimir V. Rybakov (1992). Rules of Inference with Parameters for Intuitionistic Logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (3):912-923.
Zdzisław Dywan (1980). Finite Structural Axiomatization of Every Finite-Valued Propositional Calculus. Studia Logica 39 (1):1 - 4.
Yasuhito Suzuki, Frank Wolter & Michael Zakharyaschev (1998). Speaking About Transitive Frames in Propositional Languages. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (3):317-339.
Grzegorz Malinowski (2004). Inferential Intensionality. Studia Logica 76 (1):3 - 16.
J. Czelakowski & W. Dziobiak (1999). Deduction Theorems Within RM and its Extensions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (1):279-290.
Wiesław Dziobiak (1980). An Example of Strongly Finite Consequence Operation with 2ℵ0 Standard Strengthenings. Studia Logica 39 (4):375 - 379.
Neil Tennant (1994). Intuitionistic Mathematics Does Not Needex Falso Quodlibet. Topoi 13 (2):127-133.
Wiesław Dziobiak (1981). The Lattice of Strengthenings of a Strongly Finite Consequence Operation. Studia Logica 40 (2):177 - 193.
L. Humberstone & D. Makinson (2012). Intuitionistic Logic and Elementary Rules. Mind 120 (480):1035-1051.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads2 ( #232,501 of 549,084 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,084 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
