Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:31:45.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Relevance and paraconsistency—a new approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Arnon Avron*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical Sciences, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty Of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv UniversityRamat-Aviv 69978, Israel

Extract

In this work we describe a new approach to the notions of relevance and paraconsistency. Unlike the works of Anderson and Belnap or da Costa (see [2], [8] and [7]) we shall mainly be guided in it by semantical intuitions. In the first two sections we introduce and investigate the algebraic structures that reflect those intuitions. The corresponding formal systems are briefly described in the third section (a more detailed treatment of these systems, including full proofs, will be given in another paper).

Our basic intuitive idea is that of “domains of discourse” or “relevance domains”. Classical logic, so we think, is valid in as much as sentences get values inside one domain; limitations on its use can be imposed only with respect to inferences in which more than one domain is involved. There are two basic binary relations over the collection of domains. One is relevance. It is reflexive and symmetric (but not necessarily transitive). Under a given interpretation two sentences are relevant to each other when their values are in relevant domains. Another basic relation between domains, no less important, is that of grading according to “degrees of reality”. The idea behind it is not new. Gentzen, for example, divided in [9] the world of mathematics into three grades, representing three “levels of reality”. The elementary theory of numbers has the highest degree or level of reality; set theory has the smallest degree and mathematical analysis occupies the intermediate level. In the theory of types, or in the accumulative von Neumann universe for set theory, we can find indication of a richer hierarchy.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Ackermann, W., Begründung einer strengen Implikation, this Journal, vol. 21 (1956), pp. 113128.Google Scholar
[2]Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D., Entailment: the logic of relevance and necessity. Vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1975.Google Scholar
[3]Arruda, A. I., A survey of paraconsistent logic, Mathematical logic in Latin America (Arruda, A. I.et al., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 141.Google Scholar
[4]Avron, A., Relevant entailment—semantics and formal systems, this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 334342.Google Scholar
[5]Birkhoff, G., Lattice theory, 2nd ed., American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1948.Google Scholar
[6]Burgess, J. P., Relevance: a fallacy? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 22 (1981), pp. 97104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]da Costa, N. C. A., Theory of inconsistent formal systems, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 15 (1974), pp. 497510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Dunn, J. M., Relevance logic and entailment, Handbook of philosophical logic (Gabbay, D. and Guenther, F., editors). Vol. III, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986, pp. 11171224.Google Scholar
[9]Gentzen, G., The concept of infinity in mathematics, English translation in The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969, pp. 223233.Google Scholar
[10]Sugihara, T., Strict implication free from implicational paradoxes, Memoirs of the faculty of liberal arts, Fukui Umversity, ser. 1, no. 4 (1955), pp. 5559.Google Scholar
[11]Avron, A., On purely relevant logics, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 27 (1986), pp. 180194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Avron, A., On an implicational connective of RM, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 27 (1986), pp. 201209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Avron, A., A constructive analysis of RM, this Journal, vol. 52 (1987), pp. 939951.Google Scholar
[14]Dummett, M., A prepositional calculus with denumerahle matrix, this Journal, vol. 24 (1959), pp. 96107.Google Scholar