On some mistaken beliefs about core logic and some mistaken core beliefs about logic

DOI10.1215/00294527-2018-0014zbMath1455.03014OpenAlexW2897765117WikidataQ129109421 ScholiaQ129109421MaRDI QIDQ1633896

Neil Tennant

Publication date: 21 December 2018

Published in: Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL: https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1539137244

zbMATH Keywords

transitivitydeduction theoremcutnatural deductionsynonymyinterdeducibilitymethodological adequacy

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations (03A05) Substructural logics (including relevance, entailment, linear logic, Lambek calculus, BCK and BCI logics) (03B47) Subsystems of classical logic (including intuitionistic logic) (03B20) Paraconsistent logics (03B53)

Cites Work

• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Frege's content-principle and relevant deducibility
• Why intuitionistic relevant logic cannot be a core logic
• CUT FOR CORE LOGIC
• THE RELEVANCE OF PREMISES TO CONCLUSIONS OF CORE PROOFS
• What Negation is not: Intuitionism and '0=1'
• Aristotle's Syllogistic and Core Logic
• Logic, Mathematics, and the A Priori, Part II: Core Logic as Analytic, and as the Basis for Natural Logicism
• CUT FOR CLASSICAL CORE LOGIC
• The independence of connectives
• Rule-irredundancy and the sequent calculus for core logic

This page was built for publication: On some mistaken beliefs about core logic and some mistaken core beliefs about logic