Whither relevance logic?
type: Item
instance of: scholarly article
title: Whither relevance logic?
zbMATH Open document ID: 0773.03015
DOI: 10.1007/BF00260930
author: Arnon Avron
published in: Journal of Philosophical Logic
publication date: 1993-01-16T00:00:00Z
review text: The paper falls into two parts. The first claims to be a critique of standard approaches to relevant logic, though in fact it criticises only the systems \(E\) and \(R\) of Anderson and Belnap. Applied to these and the considerations that are supposed to motivate them --- e.g., the use condition --- the criticisms have much force. There are, however, numerous weaker systems, which have, typically, been motivated by other considerations --- e.g., the desire to avoid suppression. [See \textit{R. Routley} et al., Relevant logics and their rivals. I (1982; Zbl 0579.03011).] By and large, the criticisms get no grip on such systems: they have a simple semantics and proof theory (see, respectively, \textit{G. Priest} and \textit{R. Sylvan} [``Simplified semantics for basic relevant logics'', J. Philos. Logic 21, 217-232 (1992)] and \textit{J. Slaney} [``A general logic'', Austral. J. Philos. 68, 74-88 (1990)] and accommodate extensional connectives without disturbing the intensional machinery (the author's major objection). The second part of the paper provides a useful exposition of the relevant logics \(RMI\) and \(RMI_{\widetilde{\rightarrow}}\) [see the author, J. Symb. Logic 55, 707-732 (1990; Zbl 0705.03007); Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 31, 169-202 (1990; Zbl 0714.03020)]. The only new result here is that the theorems of positive classical logic are embeddable in \(RMI_{\widetilde{\rightarrow}}\). The author claims that his systems are theoretically smoother than standard systems, and are also adequate for all practical purposes. The semantics are, however, more complex than those of the standard weaker relevant systems, and the absence of extensional connectives makes the claim about practice problematic. E.g., suppose that you are entitled to a pension iff you have lost a limb and have no taxable income, \(P\leftrightarrow L\circ T\). Suppose that \(L\) and \(T\) are true. \(P\) cannot be inferred since there is no relevant connection between \(T\) and \(L\).
Mathematics Subject Classification ID: 03B47
Mathematics Subject Classification ID: 03A05
zbMATH DE Number: 92834
zbMATH Keywords: relevant logic
zbMATH Keywords: \(R\)
zbMATH Keywords: RMI
reviewed by: Graham Priest
MaRDI profile type: Publication
full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00260930
OpenAlex ID: W2041146565
Recommended article: Natural deduction and sequent calculus for intuitionistic relevant logic
Recommended article: Relevance and paraconsistency - a new approach. II: The formal systems
Recommended article: Q4817204
Recommended article: Q4268411
Recommended article: On purely relevant logics
Recommended article: A theory of logical relevance
Recommended article: Q3784049
Recommended article: Structural completeness in relevance logics
Recommended article: Q3791116
Recommended article: Relevance Logic as a Conservative Extension of Classical Logic
description: scientific article; zbMATH DE number 92834