Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T11:25:44.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2021



Anderson and Belnap presented indexed Fitch-style natural deduction systems for the relevant logics R, E, and T. This work was extended by Brady to cover a range of relevant logics. In this paper I present indexed tree natural deduction systems for the Anderson–Belnap–Brady systems and show how to translate proofs in one format into proofs in the other, which establishes the adequacy of the tree systems.

Research Article
© Association for Symbolic Logic, 2021

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.)



Anderson, A. R., & Belnap, N. D. (1975). Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. I. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, A. R., Belnap, N. D., & Dunn, J. M. (1992). Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bimbó, K. (2006). Relevance logics. In Jacquette, D., editor. Philosophy of Logic, Volume 5 of Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 723789.Google Scholar
Borghuis, T. (1998). Modal pure type systems. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7(3), 265296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, R. T. (1984). Natural deduction systems for some quantified relevant logics. Logique Et Analyse, 27(8), 355377.Google Scholar
Brady, R. T.. (2006). Normalized natural deduction systems for some relevant logics I: The logic DW. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71(1), 3566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, R. T.. (2010). Free semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39(5), 511529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlwood, G. (1981). An axiomatic version of positive semilattice relevance logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 46(2), 233239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. (1953). The weak theory of implication. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 18(4), 326326.Google Scholar
Došen, K. (1992). The first axiomatization of relevant logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21(4), 339356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. M., & Restall, G. (2002). Relevance logic. In Gabbay, D. M. & Guenthner, F., editors. Handbook of Philosophical Logic (Second edition), Vol. 6, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1136.Google Scholar
Fitch, F. B. (1952). Symbolic Logic. New York, NY: Ronald Press Co.Google Scholar
Francez, N. (2014). Bilateral relevant logic. Review of Symbolic Logic, 7(2), 250272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giambrone, S., & Urquhart, A. (1987). Proof theories for semilattice logics. Zeitschrift fur mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 33(5), 433439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, A. P., & Pelletier, F. J. (2014). Gentzen and Jaśkowski natural deduction: Fundamentally similar but importantly different. Studia Logica, 102(6), 11031142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humberstone, L. (1988). Operational semantics for positive R. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29, 6180.Google Scholar
Humberstone, L.. (2011). The Connectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indrzejczak, A. (2010). Natural Deduction, Hybrid Systems and Modal Logics. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacinto, B., & Read, S. (2017). General-elimination stability. Studia Logica, 105, 361405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaśkowski, S. (1934). On the rules of suppositions in formal logic. Studia Logica, 1, 532. Reprinted in Polish Logic 1920–1939, edited by S. McCall, Oxford University Press, pp. 232–258.Google Scholar
Leivant, D. (1979). Assumption classes in natural deduction. Zeitschrift fur mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 25(1-2), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemmon, E. J. (1965). Beginning Logic. New Zealand: Nelson.Google Scholar
Mares, E. D. (2017). An informational interpretation of weak relevant logic and relevant property theory. Synthese, 123. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Mares, E. D.. (2004). Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Medeiros, M. D. P. N. (2006). A new S4 classical modal logic in natural deduction. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71(3), 799809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, R. K., Martin, E. P., Giambrone, S., & Urquhart, A. (1988). Further results on proof theories for semilattice logics. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 34(4), 301304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mints, G. (1992). A Short Introduction to Modal Logic. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Moh, S.-K. (1950). The deduction theorems and two new logical systems. Methodos, 2, 5675.Google Scholar
Pelletier, F. J. (1999). A brief history of natural deduction. History and Philosophy of Logic, 20(1), 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prawitz, D. (1965). Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wicksell.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2008). An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raggio, A. (1965). Gentzen’s Hauptsatz for the systems NI and NK. Logique Et Analyse, 8, 91100.Google Scholar
Read, S. (1988). Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Examination of Inference. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Read, S.. (2010). General-elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39(5), 557576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, S.. (2014). General-elimination harmony and higher-level rules. In Wansing, H., editor. Dag Prawitz on Proofs and Meaning, Outstanding Contributions to Logic, pp. 293312. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Read, S.. (2015). Semantic pollution and syntactic purity. Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(4), 649661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restall, G. (2000). An Introduction to Substructural Logics. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restall, G.. (2014). Normal proofs, cut free derivations and structural rules. Studia Logica, 102(6), 11431166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Routley, R., Plumwood, V., Meyer, R. K., & Brady, R. T. (1982). Relevant Logics and Their Rivals, Vol. 1. Chanhassen, MN: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Slaney, J. (1990). A general logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 7488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standefer, S. (2018). Trees for E. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 26(3), 300315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standefer, S.. (2019). Translations between Gentzen–Prawitz and Jaśkowski–Fitch natural deduction proofs. Studia Logica, 107, 11031134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standefer, S., & Brady, R. T. (2019). Natural deduction systems for E. Logique Et Analyse, 61(242), 163182.Google Scholar
Tennant, N. (2012). Cut for core logic. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(3), 450479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennant, N. (2015). The relevance of premises to conclusions of core proofs. Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(4), 743784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennant, N. (2017). Core Logic. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urquhart, A. (1972). Semantics for relevant logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37(1), 159169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Plato, J. (2017). From Gentzen to Jaskowski and back: Algorithmic translation of derivations between the two main systems of natural deduction. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 46(1/2), 6573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar