Bibliography
[1]Allo, Patrick. Logical pluralism and semantic information. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 36:659–694, 2007.
[2]Allwein, Gerard. A qualitative framework for Shannon information theories. In NSPW ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 Workshop on New Securities Paradigms, pages 23–31, 2005.
[3]Anderson, Alan, Belanp, Nuel D., and Dunn, J. M.. Entailment: Logic of Relevance and Necessity, volume II. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992.
[4]Anderson, Alan and Belnap, Nuel D. Entailment: Logic of Relevance and Necessity, volume I. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.
[5]Avron, Arnon. What is relevance logic? Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 165(1):26–48, 2014.
[6]Baltag, Alexandru and Smets, Sonja. Conditional doxastic models: A qualitative approach to dynamic belief revision. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 165:5–21, 2006.
[7]Barwise, Jon. Constraints, channels, and the flow of information. In Aczel, Peter, Israel, David, Katagiri, Yasuhior, and Peters, Stanley, editors, Situation Theory and its Applications, pages 3–28. CSLI Publications, Stanford, 1993.
[8]Barwise, Jon. State spaces, local logics, and non-monotonicity. In de Rijke, Maartin and Moss, Lawrence, editors, Logic, Language and Computation, volume 2, pages 1–20. CSLI, Stanford, 1999.
[9]Barwise, Jon and Perry, John. Situations and Attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.
[10]Barwise, Jon and Seligman, Jeremy. Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
[11]Belnap, Nuel. How a computer should think. In Ryle, G., editor, Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, pages 30–55. Oriel Press, Stocksfield, 1977.
[12]Belnap, Nuel. A useful 4-valued logic. In Dunn, J. M. and Epstein, G., editors, Modern Uses of Many-Valued Logic, pages 8–37. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1977.
[13]Brady, Ross. A content semantics for quantified relevant logic I. Studia Logica, 47:111–127, 1988.
[14]Camp, Elisabeth. Why maps are not propositional. In Grzankowski, Alex and Montague, Michelle, editors, Non-Propositional Intentionality, pages 19–45. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018.
[15]Carnap, Rudolf and Bar Hillel, Yohoshua. An outline of a theory of semantic information. Technical Report 247, MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, 1952.
[16]Chellas, Brian. Basic conditional logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4:133–153, 1975.
[17]Chellas, Brian. Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 1980.
[18]Clark, Andy and Chalmers, David. The extended mind. Analysis, 58:7–19, 1998.
[19]Cook, Stephen A. and Reckhow, Robert A.. The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 44:36–50, 1979.
[20]Cresswell, M.J.. Structured Meanings. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.
[21]Dienes, Zoltan and Perner, Josef. A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22:735–808, 1999.
[22]Došen, Kosta. Sequent systems and groupoid models. II. Studia Logica, 48:41–65, 1989.
[23]Dretske, Fred. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981.
[24]Michael Dunn, J.. Star and perp. Philosophical Perspectives, 7:331–357, 1993.
[25]Michael Dunn, J.. The concept of information and the development of modern logic. In Stelzner, W. and Stoeckler, M., editors, Zwischen traditioneller und moderner Logik: Nichtklassiche Ansätze, pages 423–447. Mentis Verlag GmbH, Paderborn, 2001.
[26]Michael Dunn, J.. Contradictory information: Too much of a good thing. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39:425–452, 2010.
[27]Michael Dunn, J.. Natural language versus formal language. In Omori, Hitoshi and Wansing, Heinrich, editors, New Essays on Belnap-Dunn Logic, pages 13–20. Springer Verlag, Cham, Switzerland, 2019. Originally presented at an American Philosophical Association meeting in 1968.
[28]Michael Dunn, J. and Kiefer, Nicholas M.. Contradictory information: Better than nothing? the paradox of the two firefighters. In Başkent, Can and Ferguson, Thomas Macaulay, editors, Graham Priest on Dialetheism and Paraconsistency, pages 231–247. Springer Verlag, 2019.
[29]Estrada-González, Luis. Complement-topoi and dual intuitionistic logic. Australasian Journal of Logic, 9:26–44, 2010.
[30]Floridi, Luciano, editor. Philosophy of Computing and Information. Blackwell, Oxford, 2004.
[31]Floridi, Luciano. The logic of being informed. Logique et analyse, 196:433–460, 2006.
[32]Floridi, Luciano. The Philosophy of Information. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.
[33]Frege, Gottlob. On sense and reference. The Philosophical Review, 57:209–230, 1948.
[34]Fuhrmann, André. Theory contraction through base contraction. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20(2):175–203, 1991.
[35]Gärdenfors, P.. Knowledge in Flux. Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, 1988.
[36]Gärdenfors, Peter and Makinson, David. Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In Vardi, Moshe, editor, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, pages 83–95. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.
[37]James, J. Gibson. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Psychology Press, New York, 2015. Originally published in 1979.
[38]Goldblatt, Robert. Semantic analysis of orthologic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3:19–35, 1974.
[39]Goldblatt, Robert. Logics of Time and Computation. CSLI Publications, 1992.
[40]Grice, Paul. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989.
[41]Hintikka, Jaakko. Logic, Language-Games and Information: Kantian Themes in the Philosophy of Logic. Oxford, England: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1973.
[42]Humberstone, I. L.. Operational semantics for positive R. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29:61–80, 1987.
[43]Jaśkowski, Stanisław. Rachunek zdań dla systemów dedukcyjnych sprzecznych. Studia Soc. Scient. Torunensis, 1:57–77, 1948.
[44]Jaśkowski, Stanisław. O koniunkcji dyskusyjnej w rachunku zdań dla systemów dedukcyjnych sprzecznych. Studia Soc. Scient. Torunensis, 1:171–172, 1949.
[45]Jaśkowski, Stanisław. Propositional calculus for contradictory deductive systems. Studia Logica, 24:143–160, 1969. Originally presented in 1948.
[46]Jeffrey, C. King. The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
[47]Krajíček, Jan. Proof Complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019.
[48]Kratzer, Angelika. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12:607–653, 1989.
[49]Frederick, W. Kroon. Causal descriptivism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 65:1–17, 1987.
[50]Lewis, C.I. and Langford, C.H.. Symbolic Logic. Dover, New York, second edition, 1959.
[51]Linsky, Leonard. Oblique Contexts. University of Chicago Pres, Chicago, 1983.
[52]Allen Logan, Shay. Depth relevance and hyperformalism. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 51:721–737, 2022.
[53]Maddy, Penelope. Second Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
[54]Mares, Edwin. A star-free semantics for R. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 60:579–590, 1995.
[55]Mares, Edwin. Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Interpretation. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[56]Mares, Edwin. Relevant logic, probabilistic information, and conditionals. Logique et analyse, 49:399–411, 2006.
[57]Mares, Edwin. General information in relevant logic. Synthese, 167:343–362, 2009.
[58]Mares, Edwin. Belief revision, probabilism, and logic choice. Review of Symbolic Logic, 7(4):647–670, 2014.
[59]Mares, Edwin and Fuhrmann, André. A relevant theory of conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24:645–665, 1995.
[60]Mares, Edwin, Seligman, Jeremy, and Restall, Greg. Situations, constraints, and channels. In van Benthem, Johan and ter Meulen, Alice G.B., editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 329–344. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2010.
[61]Martinez, Maricarmen and Sequoiah-Grayson, Sebastian. Logic and Information. In Edward, N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2019 edition, 2019.
[62]Manuel, A. Martins and Sedlár, Igor, editors. Dynamic Logic: New Trends and Applications, Cham, 2020. Springer Verlag.
[63]Mortensen, Chris. Inconsistent Mathematics. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995.
[64]Nelson, Ruth. What is a secret and what does it have to do with computer security? In Proceedings of the 1994 Workshop on New Securities Paradigms, pages 74–79, 1994.
[65]Ono, Hiroakira. Semantics for substructural logics. In Došen, Kosta and Schröder-Heister, Peter, editors, Substructural Logics, pages 259–291. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.
[66]Paoli, Francesco. Substructural Logics: A Primer. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, 2002.
[67]Parikh, Rohit. Knowledge and the problem of logical omniscience. In Ras, Zibignew and Zemankova, Maria, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Intelligent Systems, pages 432–439. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1989.
[68]Pratt, Vaughan. Semantical considerations on the Floyd-Hoare logic. Proceedings of the 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1976.
[69]Priest, Graham. An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2008.
[70]Priest, Graham. Logical theory choice. Australasian Journal of Logic, 16:283–297, 2019.
[71]Punčochář, Vit, Sedlár, Igor, and Tedder, Andrew. Relevant propositional dynamic logic. Synthese, 3001 forthcoming.
[72]Read, Stephen. Necessary truth and proof. Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy, 51:47–67, 2010.
[73]Restall, Greg. Four-valued semantics for relevant logics (and some of their rivals). Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24(2):139–160, 1995.
[74]Restall, Greg. Information flow and relevant logics. In Seligman, Jeremy and Westerstøahl, Dag, editors, Logic, Language and Computation, pages 463–477. CSLI Publications, Stanford, 1995.
[75]Restall, Greg. Negation in relevant logics (how i stopped worrying and learned to love the Routley star). In Gabbay, Dov and Wansing, Heinrich, editors, What is Negation?, pages 53–76. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
[76]Routley, Richard and Robert, K. Meyer. Semantics for entailment. In Leblanc, Hughes, editor, Truth, Syntax, and Modality. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1973.
[77]Routley, Richard, Meyer, Robert K., Brady, Ross, and Plumwood, Val. Relevant Logics and their Rivals. Ridgeview, Atascardero, 1983.
[78]Routley, Richard and Routley, Val. The semantics of first-degree entailment. Noûs, 6:335–395, 1972.
[79]Russell, Bertrand. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1985.
[80]Russell, Gillian. The justification of the basic laws of logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44:793–803, 2015.
[81]Schotch, Peter and Jennings, Raymond. On detonating. In Priest, G., Routley, R., and Norman, J., editors, Paraconsistent Logic, pages 306–327. Philosophia Verlag, Munich, 1989.
[82]Segerberg, Krister. Notes on conditional logic. Studia Logica, 48:157–168, 1989.
[83]Seligman, Jeremy. Perspectives: A Relativistic Approach to the Theory of Information. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1990.
[84]Sequoias-Grayson, Sebastian. The scandal of deduction: Hintikka on the information yield of deductive inferences. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37:67–94, 2008.
[85]Shannon, Claude E. and Weaver, Warren. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL, 1963.
[86]Sperber, Dan and Wison, Deirdre. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford, second edition, 1995.
[87]Tedder, Andrew. Information flow in the vicinity of BB. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 18:1–24, 2021.
[88]Tedder, Andrew and Bilková, Marta. Relevant propositional dynamic logic. Synthese, 200(3):1–42, 2022.
[89]van Benthem, Johan. Language in Action: Categories, Lambdas, and Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
[90]van Benthem, Johan. Logical Dynamics of Information and Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011.
[91]van Benthem, Johan and Israel, David. Review of Jon Barwise and Jeremy Seligman, Information flow. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 8:390–397, 1999.
[92]Williamson, Timothy. Semantic paradoxes and abductive methodology. In Reflections on the Liar, pages 325–346. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
