Four-valued semantics for relevant logics (and some of their rivals) (Q1346215)

\textit{G. Priest} and \textit{R. Sylvan} [ibid. 21, No. 2, 217-232 (1992; Zbl 0782.03008)] and the author [ibid. 22, No. 5, 481-511 (1993; Zbl 0782.03009)] provided simplified semantics for most standard relevant logics. The semantics employ mainly the Routley \(*\) operator to model negation. This paper explores the possibility of using a four-valued semantics (true, false, both and neither) instead. Three approaches are pursued. The first provides a simplified four-valued semantics for most relevant logics, but does so by mimicking the \(*\) semantics. The second and third avoid this by giving conditionals non-arbitrary falsity conditions. The second gives semantics for only a few relevant logics, notably C (RW). The third gives semantics for none of the standard relevant logics, but for a whole new family of such logics which, characteristically, validate the schema \((\alpha\to \beta)\to((\alpha\to \perp)\vee\neg(\alpha\to \neg\beta))\). Completeness proofs for this new family remain an open problem.