A bivalent valuation is snt iff sound (standard PC inference rules take truths only into truths) and non-trivial (not all wffs are assigned the same truth value). Such a valuation is normal iff classically correct for each connective. Carnap knew that there were non-normal snt valuations of PC, and that the gap they revealed between syntax and semantics could be "jumped" as follows. Let $VAL_{snt}$ be the set of snt valuations, and $VAL_{nrm}$ be the set of normal ones. The bottom (...) row in the table for the wedge 'v' is not semantically determined by $VAL_{snt}$ , but if one deletes from $VAL_{snt}$ all those valuations that are not classically correct at the aforementioned row, one jumps straights to $VAL_{nrm}$ and thus to classical semantics. The conjecture we call semantic holism claims that the same thing happens for any semantic indeterminacy in any row in the table of any connective of PC, i.e., to remove it is to jump straight to classical semantics. We show (i) why semantic holism is plausible and (ii) why it is nevertheless false. And (iii) we pose a series of questions concerning the number of possible steps or jumps between the indeterminate semantics given by $VAL_{snt}$ and classical semantics given by $VAL_{nrm}$. (shrink)

Here is an important new theory of human action, a theory that assumes actions are founded on choices made by agents who face an open future.

In spite of a powerful tradition, more than two thousand years old, that in a valid argument the premises must be relevant to the conclusion, twentieth-century logicians neglected the concept of relevance until the publication of Volume I of this monumental work. Since that time relevance logic has achieved an important place in the field of philosophy: Volume II of Entailment brings to a conclusion a powerful and authoritative presentation of the subject by most of the top people working in (...) the area. Originally the aim of Volume II was simply to cover certain topics not treated in the first volume--quantification, for example--or to extend the coverage of certain topics, such as semantics. However, because of the technical progress that has occurred since the publication of the first volume, Volume II now includes other material. The book contains the work of Alasdair Urquhart, who has shown that the principal sentential systems of relevance logic are undecidable, and of Kit Fine, who has demonstrated that, although the first-order systems are incomplete with respect to the conjectured constant domain semantics, they are still complete with respect to a semantics based on "arbitrary objects." Also presented is important work by the other contributing authors, who are Daniel Cohen, Steven Giambrone, Dorothy L. Grover, Anil Gupta, Glen Helman, Errol P. Martin, Michael A. McRobbie, and Stuart Shapiro. Robert G. Wolf's bibliography of 3000 items is a valuable addition to the volume. (shrink)

Gupta’s Rule of Revision theory of truth builds on insights to be found in Martin and Woodruff and Kripke in order to permanently deepen our understanding of truth, of paradox, and of how we work our language while our language is working us. His concept of a predicate deriving its meaning by way of a Rule of Revision ought to impact significantly on the philosophy of language. Still, fortunately, he has left me something to.

In [6] proof tableau formulations were given of the implication/negation fragments of the important zero-order relevant logics E and R and the semirelevant logic RM . The main purpose of this paper then, is to extend results by giving proof tableau formulations of the distribution-free fragments of E, R and RM and of their first order extensions EQ, RQ and RMQ. Where X is one of these logics, we shall follow [13] in calling its distribution-free fragment OX – the ‘O’ (...) standing for ‘ortho’ which is meant to signify the kinship of these logics to quantum logics or ortho-logics as they now tend to be known. Hence in what follows we shall refer to the logics OX simply as relevant ortho-logics. (shrink)

Tableau formulations are given for the relevance logics E (Entailment), R (Relevant implication) and RM (Mingle). Proofs of equivalence to modus-ponens-based formulations are vialeft-handed Gentzen sequenzen-kalküle. The tableau formulations depend on a detailed analysis of the structure of tableau rules, leading to certain global requirements. Relevance is caught by the requirement that each node must be used; modality is caught by the requirement that only certain rules can cross a barrier. Open problems are discussed.

Following a suggestion of Feys, we use “rigorous implication” as a translation of Ackermann's strenge Implikation ([1]). Interest in Ackermann's system stems in part from the fact that it formalizes the properties of a strong, natural sort of implication which provably avoids standard implicational paradoxes, and which is consequently a good candidate for a formalization of entailment (considered as a narrower relation than that of strict implication). Our present purpose will not be to defend this suggestion, but rather to present (...) some information about rigorous implication. In particular, we show first that the structure of modalities (in the sense of Parry [4]) in Ackermann's system is identical with the structure of modalities in Lewis's S4, and secondly that (Ackermann's apparent conjecture to the contrary notwithstanding) it is possible to define modalities with the help of rigorous implication. (shrink)

and I CaPI e D, then I Pl e D for all similar assignments. (2) For all values of P and q, I CPCNPql e D. (3) For all values of the variables in a, if la( e U then INal e D. (4) The F,P are constant functions such that, for all values of P, ~ FIP~ = 1, I F, Pl = 2,..., I F„t I = m.

1. Rescher 1964 — henceforth HR — proposes a way of reasoning from a set of hypotheses which may include both some of our beliefs and also hypotheses contradicting those beliefs. The aim of this paper is to point out what I take to be a fault in Rescher’s proposal, and to suggest a modification of it, using a nonclassical logic, which avoids that fault. The paper neither attacks nor defends the broader aspects of Rescher’s proposal, but merely assumes that (...) it is at least prima facie worthwhile and therefore worthy of amendment; consequently, I shall try to tinker as little as possible. In particular, the use of a nonclassical logic which I propose does not replace any use by HR of classical logic — in those places where Rescher is classical, I shall be classical, too. (Instead, the amendment introduces a nonclassical logic at a point where HR uses no logic at all.). (shrink)