Rules in relevant logic. II: Formula representation (Q1319363): Difference between revisions

In this second part, the author investigates formula representations of rules for various systems of Relevant Logic from the basic system B to R with the sentential constant \(t\). Since Deduction Theorems are essentially transformation (meta-)rules between rules and corresponding theorems, the paper in fact focuses on various forms of deduction theorems (with and without restrictions) for relevant logics. These are characterised by the corresponding formula representations: (1) iterated form, \(A_ 1 \to_ \cdot \dots \to_ \cdot A_ n \to B\); (2) conjunctive form, \((A_ 1 \& \dots \& A_ n) \to B\); (3) combined iterated and conjunctive form; (4), (5) and (6) enthymematic versions of these three forms; and (7) classical implication form, \(\sim (A_ 1\& \dots \& A_ n) \vee B\). Forms 1 and 2 (pure iterated and pure conjunctive forms) are discussed by \textit{A. R. Anderson} and \textit{N. D. Belnap jun.} [Entailment: The logic of relevance and necessity, Vol. I (1975; Zbl 0323.02030)] and \textit{J. M. Dunn} [Handbook of philosophical logic, Vol. III: Alternatives to classical logic (D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.)), Synthese Libr. 166, 117-224 (1986; Zbl 0603.03001)]. Here they are investigated with respect to relevant logics in general rather one or two specific relevant logics. Form 3 (combined iterated and conjunctive form) is introduced by \textit{A. Kron} [Z. Math. Logik Grundl. Math. 22, 261-264 (1976; Zbl 0344.02013)] which claims the same results as this paper for R, E, and T (with respect to form 3). Form 4 is similar to the Enthymematic Deduction Theorem of Dunn [loc. cit.] and \textit{R. K. Meyer, J. M. Dunn} and \textit{H. Leblanc} [Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 15, 97-121 (1974; Zbl 0226.02022)]. Again, it is investigated here for a wider range of relevant logics. Form 6 (combined iterated, conjunctive enthymematic form) yields an interesting deduction theorem for relevant logics that even lack conjunctive modus ponens or (WI), i.e. \((A \to B) \& A \to B\), provided that they have suffixing, or \(\text{B}'\), i.e. \(A \to B \to_ \cdot B \to C \to_ \cdot A \to C\), or conjunctive syllogism, i.e. \((A \to B) \& (B \to C) \to_ \cdot A \to C\). Form 7 (classical implication form) also yields some interesting results for logics containing the meta rule: MR1. If \(A \Rightarrow B\), then \(A \vee C \Rightarrow B \vee C\), and/or containing the rule gamma, i.e., modus ponens for classical implication; as well as for weak relevant logics to which ``classical formulae'' are added. (Classical formulae are zero degree formulae, i.e., those not containing any \(\to\)'s, and are symbolised by \(A',B',\dots\).) These systems are obtained by adding the following axiom scheme and rule: \(A' \vee \sim A'\) and \(A', A' \vee B \Rightarrow B\).