By a consequence relation on a set L of formulas we understand a relation I Ã¢â¬â c p(L) x L satisfying the conditions called 'Overlap', 'Dilution', and 'Cut for Sets' at p.15 of ; we do not repeat the conditions here since we are simply fixing notation and the concept of a consequence relation is well known in any case. (The characterization in  amounts to that familiar from Tarski's work, except that there is no 'finitariness' restriction to the effect that when I I Ã¢â¬â A, for I c L, A c L, we must have I o I Ã¢â¬â A for some finite I o c I . The presence or absence of this condition makes no difference to anything that follows.) Each language L to be considered will be a sentential language whose formulas are built in the usual way by application of it-ary (primitive) connectives to it simpler formulas, starting with the simplest formulas Ã¢â¬â the propositional variables (or 'sentence letters') Ã¢â¬â not constructed with the aid of connectives. We assume, as usual, that there are countably many such variables, and they will be denoted by p, q, r, ... possibly with numerical subscripts. A consequence relation I- on such an L has the Unrestricted Interpolation Property when for any A, C c L with A I Ã¢â¬â C, there exists B c L with A I Ã¢â¬â B and B I Ã¢â¬â C, such that C is constructed only out of such propositional variables as occur both in A and in C. (Such a B is called an interpolant for A and C.) Note that we take the usual notational liberties here, writing "A I Ã¢â¬â C" (and the like) for "iAi I Ã¢â¬â C", "I, A I Ã¢â¬â C" to mean "I u iAi I Ã¢â¬â C", and "I Ã¢â¬â C" to mean "8 I Ã¢â¬â C". Further, we sometimes abbreviate the claim that A I Ã¢â¬â B and B I Ã¢â¬â C to "A I Ã¢â¬â B I Ã¢â¬â C", and when C is A itself, we always write this simply as "A Ã¢â¬â IIÃ¢â¬â B"..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Consequence Relation of Tautological Entailment is Maximally Relevant: Answering a Question of Graham Priest.Lloyd Humberstone - manuscript
On an Interpretation of Second Order Quantification in First Order Intuitionistic Propositional Logic.Andrew M. Pitts - 1992 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (1):33-52.
Coinductive Formulas and a Many-Sorted Interpolation Theorem.Ursula Gropp - 1988 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (3):937-960.
A Two-Valued Logic for Reasoning About Different Types of Consequence in Kleene's Three-Valued Logic.Beata Konikowska - 1990 - Studia Logica 49 (4):541 - 555.
Interpolation and Amalgamation Properties in Varieties of Equivalential Algebras.Małgorzata Porębska - 1986 - Studia Logica 45 (1):35 - 38.
Identical Twins, Deduction Theorems, and Pattern Functions: Exploring the Implicative BCsK Fragment of S. [REVIEW]Lloyd Humberstone - 2006 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (5):435 - 487.
Identical Twins, Deduction Theorems, and Pattern Functions: Exploring the Implicative BCsK Fragment of S. [REVIEW]Lloyd Humberstone - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (5):435 - 487.
Functional Dependencies, Supervenience, and Consequence Relations.I. L. Humberstone - 1993 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2 (4):309-336.
Interpolation Theorems, Lower Bounds for Proof Systems, and Independence Results for Bounded Arithmetic.Jan Krajíček - 1997 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (2):457-486.
Interpolation and Definability in Guarded Fragments.Eva Hoogland & Maarten Marx - 2002 - Studia Logica 70 (3):373 - 409.
Relation Algebra Reducts of Cylindric Algebras and an Application to Proof Theory.Robin Hirsch, Ian Hodkinson & Roger D. Maddux - 2002 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 67 (1):197-213.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads1 ( #866,981 of 2,154,174 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?