Proofs (2) 2023-2 Modal Logic (Segment 3) Q) How might one use relevant logic to interpret C. I. Lewis’ strict implication as relevant entailment where we have: Give proofs of the wffs K and T in Lewis’s S1, i.e., prove: 1. L(p ⊃ q) : ⊃: Lp ⊃ Lq 2. Lp ⊃ p Logic/Relevance Logic 2024.01.14
Proofs (1) 2023-2 Modal Logic (Segment 3) Q) Routley-Meyer Semantics for Relevant Logic has this: Prove (using the semantics) the following: 1. A & B .–▶. A v B 2. ¬¬A ◀– –▶ A 3. ¬(A & B) ◀– –▶. ¬A v ¬B 4. ¬A –▶ B .–▶. ¬B –▶ A Logic/Relevance Logic 2024.01.14
Relevant Logic as Paraconsistent Logic 2023-2 Modal Logic (Segment 3) Q) Explain why that (∀x)Roox yields (∀x)Roxo and collapses Relevent logic into classical logic. If is sufficient (for the present purposes) to just prove something that doesn’t hold in Relevant Logic, e.g., ¬A ∧ (A ∨ B) .–Ȝ. B. Why does it seem not to be viable to take relevant logic to be a universal logic (a logic that can capture all others?) #2) Generally speak.. Logic/Relevance Logic 2024.01.14