HOW A SEMANTICS FOR TONK SHOULD BE

DOI10.1017/S1755020314000513zbMath1382.03016MaRDI QIDQ3195587

Andreas Fjellstad

Publication date: 20 October 2015

Published in: The Review of Symbolic Logic (Search for Journal in Brave)

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations (03A05) Cut-elimination and normal-form theorems (03F05) Structure of proofs (03F07)

Related Items (8)

Knot is not that nasty (but it is hardier than tonk) ⋮ On structural contraction and why it fails ⋮ Structural weakening and paradoxes ⋮ Non-classical elegance for sequent calculus enthusiasts ⋮ Noncontractive classical logic ⋮ Introducing identity ⋮ Logical Nihilism and the Logic of ‘prem’ ⋮ On a distinction of two facets of meaning and its role in proof-theoretic semantics

Cites Work

• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Tolerant, classical, strict
• Why conclusions should remain single
• What's wrong with tonk(?)
• CONSERVATIVELY EXTENDING CLASSICAL LOGIC WITH TRANSPARENT TRUTH

This page was built for publication: HOW A SEMANTICS FOR TONK SHOULD BE