Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T07:21:18.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Simple Gentzenizations for the normal formulae of contraction-less logics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Ross T. Brady*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Latrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia, E-mail: phirtb@luga.latrobe.edu.au

Extract

In [1], we established Gentzenizations for a good range of relevant logics with distribution, but, in the process, we added inversion rules, which involved extra structural connectives, and also added the sentential constant t. Instead of eliminating them, we used conservative extension results to relate them back to the original logics. In [4], we eliminated the inversion rules and t and established a much simpler Gentzenization for the weak sentential relevant logic DW, and also for its quantificational extension DWQ, but a restriction to normal formulae (defined below) was required to enable these results to be proved. This method was quite general and hope was expressed about extending it to other relevant logics.

In this paper, we develop an innovative method, which makes essential use of this restriction to normality, to establish two simple Gentzenizations for the normal formulae of the slightly weaker logic B, and then extend the method to other sentential contraction-less logics. To obtain the first of these Gentzenizations, for the logics B and DW, we remove the two branching rules (F&) and (T∨), together with the structural connective ‘,’, to simplify the elimination of the inversion rules and t. We then eliminate the rules (T&) and (F∨), thus reducing the Gentzen system to one containing only ˜ and → and their four associated rules, and reduce the remaining types of structures to four simple finite types. Subsequently, we re-introduce (T&) and (F∨), and also (F&) and (T∨), to obtain the second Gentzenization, which contains ‘,’ but no structural rules.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1996

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]Brady, R. T., Gentzenizations of relevant logics with distribution, this Journal, forthcoming.Google Scholar
[2]Brady, R. T., Gentzenizations of relevant logics without distribution—I, this Journal, forthcoming.Google Scholar
[3]Brady, R. T., Gentzenizations of relevant logics without distribution—II, this Journal, forthcoming.Google Scholar
[4]Brady, R. T., Towards a simple Gentzenization for relevant logics, presented to the Australasian Association for Logic Conference, University of Adelaide, 07, 1993.Google Scholar
[5]Brady, R. T., Completeness proofs for the systems RM3 and BN4, Logique et Analyse, vol. 25 (1982), pp. 932.Google Scholar
[6]Brady, R. T., The Gentzenization and decidability of of RW, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 19 (1990), pp. 3573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Brady, R. T., The Gentzenization and decidability of some contractionless relevant logics, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 20 (1991), pp. 97117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Brady, R. T., Simplified Gentzenizations for contraction-less logics, Logique et Analyse, vol. 137 (1992), pp. 4567.Google Scholar
[9]Kron, A., Decidability and interpolation for a first-order relevance in logic, Substructural logics (Schroeder-Heister, P. and Došen, K., editors), Oxford, 1993, pp. 153177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Routley, R., Meyer, R. K., Plumwood, V., and Brady, R. T., Relevant logics and their rivals, vol. 1, Ridgeview, 1982.Google Scholar