On purported Gentzen formulations of two positive relevent logics

Studia Logica 44 (3):233 - 236 (1985)
Abstract
[10] offers two (cut-free) subscripted Gentzen systems, G 2 T + and G 2 R +, which are claimed to be equivalent in an appropriate sense to the positive relevant logics T + and R +, respectively. In this paper we show that that claim is false. We also show that the argument in [10] for the further claim that cut and/or modus ponens is admissible in two other subscripted Gentzen systems, G 1 T + and G 1 R +, is unsound.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00394443
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,655
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Display Logic.Nuel D. Belnap - 1982 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 11 (4):375-417.
Gupta's Rule of Revision Theory of Truth.Nuel D. Belnap - 1982 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 11 (1):103-116.
Semantics for Relevant Logics.Alasdair Urquhart - 1972 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 37 (1):159-169.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

24 ( #208,445 of 2,158,251 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #355,837 of 2,158,251 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums