How to be really contraction free (Q1313081)

From MaRDI portal
Revision as of 08:30, 30 July 2024 by Openalex240730090724 (talk | contribs) (Set OpenAlex properties.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)





scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
How to be really contraction free
scientific article

    Statements

    How to be really contraction free (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    21 August 1994
    0 references
    It is well known that the inference of contraction (from \(A\to (A\to B)\) to derive \(A\to B\)) is necessary for the deduction of absurdity from paradoxical statements like ``if this is true, then absurdity follows''. If we call this kind of contraction ``2-1 contraction'' (from two uses of the antecedent \(A\) to one use), then the picture generalises. For a logic to resist absurd conclusions from paradoxical statements like these, it must not only be ``2-1 contraction'' free, but also ``\(n-m\) contraction'' free where \(n>m\). This paper shows that no finitely valued logic is \(n-m\) contraction free for each \(n\) and \(m\), and it gives examples of other logics which are \(2-1\) contraction free but not \(n-m\) contraction free.
    0 references
    paradox
    0 references
    finite models
    0 references
    contraction
    0 references
    absurdity
    0 references

    Identifiers