Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T07:27:37.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multiplicative conjunction and an algebraic meaning of contraction and weakening

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

A. Avron
A. Avron*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical Sciences, Sackxer Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show that the elimination rule for the multiplicative (or intensional) conjunction Λ is admissible in many important multiplicative substructural logics. These include LLm (the multiplicative fragment of Linear Logic) and RMIm (the system obtained from LLm by adding the contraction axiom and its converse, the mingle axiom.) An exception is Rm (the intensional fragment of the relevance logic R, which is LLm together with the contraction axiom). Let SLLm and SRm be, respectively, the systems which are obtained from LLm and Rm by adding this rule as a new rule of inference. The set of theorems of SRm is a proper extension of that of Rm, but a proper subset of the set of theorems of RMIm. Hence it still has the variable-sharing property. SRm has also the interesting property that classical logic has a strong translation into it. We next introduce general algebraic structures, called strong multiplicative structures, and prove strong soundness and completeness of SLLm relative to them. We show that in the framework of these structures, the addition of the weakening axiom to SLLm corresponds to the condition that there will be exactly one designated element, while the addition of the contraction axiom corresponds to the condition that there will be exactly one nondesignated element (in the first case we get the system BCKm, in the second - the system SRm). Various other systems in which multiplicative conjunction functions as a true conjunction are studied, together with their algebraic counterparts.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , September 1998 , pp. 831 - 859
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Anderson, A. R. and Belnap, N. D., Entailment, vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1975.Google Scholar
[2]Anderson, A. R., Belnap, N. D., and Dunn, J. M., Entailment, vol. 2, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1992.Google Scholar
[3]Avron, A., Relevant entailment—semantics and formal systems, this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 334–342.Google Scholar
[4]Avron, A., The semantics and proof theory of linear logic, Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 57 (1988), pp. 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Avron, A., Relevance andparaconsistency—a new approach, part II: The formal systems, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 31 (1990), pp. 169–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Avron, A., Relevance and paraconsistency—a new approach, part 3: Gentzen-type systems, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 32 (1991), pp. 147–160.Google Scholar
[7]Avron, A., Axiomatic systems, deduction and implication, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 2 (1992), pp. 51–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Avron, A., Multiplicative conjunction as an extensional conjunction, Logic Journal of the IGPL, vol. 5 (1997), pp. 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Došen, K., A historical introduction to substructural logics, Substructural logics (Schroeder-Heister, P. and Došen, K., editors), Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
[10]Dunn, J. M., Relevant logic and entailment, Handbook of philosophical logic (Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F., editors), vol. III, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland; Boston, U.S.A., 1986.Google Scholar
[11]Girard, J. Y., Linear logic, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 50 (1987), pp. 1–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Sobociński, B., Axiomatization of partial system of three-valued calculus of propositions, Journal of Computing Systems, vol. 1 (1952), no. 1, pp. 23–55.Google Scholar
[13]Troelstra, A. S., Lectures on linear logic, CSLI Lecture Notes, no. 29, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, 1992.Google Scholar