Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T03:50:39.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2024

Edwin Mares
Edwin Mares
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Logic of Entailment and its History , pp. 252 - 261
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

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

Ackermann, Wilhelm. Begründung einer strenge Implikation. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21:113–128, 1956.Google Scholar
Anderson, Alan. Some open problems concerning the system E of entailment. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16:9–18, 1963.Google Scholar
Anderson, Alan, Belnap, Nuel D., and Dunn, J. M.. Entailment: Logic of Relevance and Necessity, volume II. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992.Google Scholar
Anderson, Alan and Belnap, Nuel D.. Entailment: Logic of Relevance and Necessity, volume I. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.Google Scholar
Angell, Richard B.. Deducibility, entailment and analytic containment. In Norman, J. and Sylvan, R., editors, Directions in Relevant Logic, pages 119–143. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989.Google Scholar
Aristotle. Prior analytics. In Aristotle, Complete Works, volume 1, pages 39–113. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Thomas. C.I. Lewis and the analyticity debate. In Reck, Erich H., editor, The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy, pages 201–228. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2013.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon and Perry, John. Situations and Attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.Google Scholar
Basin, David, D’Augustino, Marcello, Gabbay, Dov, Matthews, Sean, and Vigano, Luca, editors. Labelled Deduction. Springer, Dordrecht, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beall, Jc. There is no logical negation: True, false, both, and neither. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 14:1–29, 2017.Google Scholar
Beall, Jc, Brady, Ross, Hazen, Alan, Priest, Graham, and Restall, Greg. Relevant restricted quantification. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35:587–598, 2006.Google Scholar
Beall, Jc and Murzi, Julian. Two flavors of Curry’s paradox. The Journal of Philosophy, 110:143–165, 2013.Google Scholar
Becker, Oskar. Zur Logik der Modalitäten. Jahrbuch für philosophie und philosophische Forschung, 9:497–548, 1930.Google Scholar
Bell, John L.. Infinitary logic. In Zalta, Edward N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, Winter 2016 edition, 2016.Google Scholar
Bigelow, John. The Reality of Numbers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988.Google Scholar
Bimbó, Katalin and Dunn, J. Michael. Larisa Maksimova’s early contributions to relevance logic. In Odintsov, S., editor, Larisa Maksimova on Implication, Interpolation, and Definability. Springer Verlag, Basel, 2018.Google Scholar
Bimbó, Katalin, Dunn, J. Michael, and Ferenz, Nicholas. Two manuscripts: One by Routley, one by Meyer: The origins of the Routley-Meyer semantics for relevance logics. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 15:171–209, 2018.Google Scholar
Bloor, David. Knowledge as Social Imagery. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, second edition, 1991.Google Scholar
Bolzano, Bernard. Theory of Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014.Google Scholar
Boole, George. An Investigation of the Laws of Thought. Macmillan, London, 1854. I used the 1958 Dover reprint.Google Scholar
Boolos, George. The Logic of Provability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.Google Scholar
Brady, Ross. A content semantics for quantified relevant logic I. Studia Logica, 47: 111–127, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Ross. Gentzenization and decidability of some contraction-less relevant logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20:97–117, 1991.Google Scholar
Brady, Ross. Normalized natural deduction systems for some relevant logics I: The logic DW. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71:35–66, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Ross. Universal Logic. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA, 2006.Google Scholar
Brown, Bryson and Priest, Graham. Chunk and permeate: An inconsistent inference strategy. Part I: The infinitesimal calculus. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33:379–388, 2004.Google Scholar
Buridan, John. Treatise on Consequences. Fordham University Press, New York, 2015. Translated with an introduction by Stephen Read and an editorial introduction by Hubert Hubien.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. Testability and meaning. Philosophy of Science, 3:419–471, 1936.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. Logical Syntax of Language. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1937.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. On inductive logic. Philosophy of Science, 12:72–97, 1945.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. Modalities and quantification. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 11:33–64, 1946.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. Meaning postulates. Philosophical Studies, 3:65–73, 1952.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, second edition, 1956.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. Carnap’s intellectual autobiography. In Schilpp, Paul A., editor, The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, pages 3–86. Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1963.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Dover Publications, Garden City, NY, 1995. Originally published in 1966.Google Scholar
Chellas, Brian. Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, Alonzo. The weak theory of implication. In Menne, Albert and Wilhelmy, Alexander, editors, Kontrolliertes Deken, Untersuchungen zum Logikkalulkül und zur Logik der Eizelwissenschaften, pages 22–37. Kommissions-Verlag Karl Alber, Freiburg, 1951.Google Scholar
Church, Alonzo. Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1956.Google Scholar
Cocchiarella, Nino B.. On the primary and secondary semantics of logical necessity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4:13–27, 1975.Google Scholar
Cocchiarella, Nino B.. Logical Studies in Early Analytic Philosophy. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, 1987.Google Scholar
Copeland, B. Jack. The genesis of possible world semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 31:99–137, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, Max. The completeness of Carnap’s modal predicate logic. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 11:46–61, 2014.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Max. Carnap’s modal predicate logic. In Cresswell, Max, Mares, Edwin, and Rini, Adriane, editors, Logical Modalities from Aristotle to Carnap, pages 298–316. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M. J.. The interpretation of some Lewis systems of modal logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 45:198–206, 1967.Google Scholar
Cresswell, M. J.. S1 is not so simple. In Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, Raffman, Diana, and Asher, Nicholas, editors, Modality, Morality, and Belief, pages 29–40. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.Google Scholar
Cresswell, M. J.. Revisiting McKinsey’s ‘syntactical’ construction of modality. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 17:123–140, 2020.Google Scholar
Crossley, John N. and Humberstone, Lloyd. The logic of ‘actually’. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 3:11–29, 1977.Google Scholar
Davies, Martin and Humberstone, Lloyd. Two notions of necessity. Philosophical Studies, 38:1–30, 1980.Google Scholar
Došen, Kosta. The first axiomatisation of relevant logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21:339–356, 1992.Google Scholar
Došen, Kosta. Modal logic as metalogic. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 1:173–201, 1992.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. Michael. Natural versus formal languages. Given at an American Philosophical Association meeting, 1968.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. Michael. Relevant Robinson’s arithmetic. Studia Logica, 38:407–418, 1979.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. Michael. Relevance logic and entailment. In Gabbay, D. M. and Guenthner, F., editors, Handbook of Philosophical logic, volume III, pages 117–224. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1984.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. Michael. Relevant predication I: The formal theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16:347–381, 1987.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. Michael. Relevant predication II: Intrinsic properties and internal relations. Philosophical Studies, 60, 1990.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. Michael. Star and perp. Philosophical Perspectives, 7:331–357, 1993.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. Michael and Restall, Greg. Relevance logic. In Gabbay, D. M. and Guenthner, F., editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume VI, pages 1–128. Springer Verlag, Basel, second edition, 2002.Google Scholar
Eder, Güunther. Frege’s ‘On the foundations of geometry’ and axiomatic metatheory. Mind, 125:5–40, 2016.Google Scholar
Etchemendy, John. The Concept of Logical Consequence. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
Ferenz, Nicholas. Identity in relevant logics: A relevant predication approach. In Blicha, Martin and Sedlar, Igor, editors, The Logica Yearbook 2020, pages 49–64. College Publications, London, 2021.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. Models for entailment. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3:347–372, 1974.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. Reasoning with Arbitrary Objects. Blackwell, Oxford, 1985.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. Analytic implication. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 27:169–179, 1986.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. Semantics for quantified relevance logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 14:27–59, 1988.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. Incompleteness for quantified relevance logics. In Sylvan, Richard and Norman, Jean, editors, Directions in Relevant Logic, pages 205–255. Springer, Dordrecht, 1989.Google Scholar
Fitch, Frederick B.. Natural deduction rules for obligation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 3:27–38, 1966.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. On the foundations of geometry. In McGuiness, Brian, editor, Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy, pages 293–340. Blackwell, 1984.Google Scholar
Friedman, Harvey and Meyer, Robert K.. Whither relevant arithmetic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 57:824–831, 1992.Google Scholar
Fuhrmann, André. Models for relevant modal logics. Studia Logica, 49:501–514, 1990.Google Scholar
Gabbay, Dov M.. On second-order intuitionist propositional calculus with full comprehension. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 16:177–186, 1974.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N.. Explaining Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988.Google Scholar
Goheen, J. D. and Mothershead, J. L., editors. Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1970.Google Scholar
Goldblatt, Robert. Semantic analysis of orthologic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3:19–35, 1974.Google Scholar
Goldblatt, Robert. Mathematical modal logic: A view of its evolution. In Gabbay, Dov and Woods, John, editors, Handbook of the History of Logic, volume 7, pages 1–98. Elsevier, Leiden, 2006.Google Scholar
Goldblatt, Robert. Quantifiers, Propositions, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldblatt, Robert and Kane, Michael. An admissible semantics for propositionally quantified relevant logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39:73–100, 2010.Google Scholar
Gupta, Anil and Belnap, Nuel. The Revision Theory of Truth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993.Google Scholar
Herbrand, Jacques. Investigations in proof theory. In Goldfarb, Warren D., editor, Jacques Herbrand, Logical Writings, pages 44–202. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1971.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. Standard vs. nonstandard logic: Higher-order, modal, and first-order logics. In Agazzi, E., editor, Modern Logic – A Survey, pages 283–296. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko and Hintikka, Merrill. The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, George and Cresswell, Max. An Introduction to Modal Logic. Methuen, York, 1968.Google Scholar
Hughes, George and Cresswell, Max. A New Introduction to Modal Logic. Routledge, London, 1996.Google Scholar
Humberstone, Lloyd. Operational semantics for positive R. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29:61–80, 1988.Google Scholar
Humberstone, Lloyd. Smiley’s distinction between rules of inference and rules of proof. In Lear, J. and Oliver, A., editors, The Force of Argument: Essays in Honour of Timothy Smiley, pages 107–126. Routledge, London, 2010.Google Scholar
Humberstone, Lloyd. The Connectives. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2011.Google Scholar
Hunter, Bruce. Clarence Irving Lewis. In Zalta, Edward N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, Spring 2021 edition, 2021.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank. From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Bjarni and Tarski, Alfred. Boolean algebras with operators, part I. American Journal of Mathematics, 73:891–939, 1951.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. Demonstratives. In Almog, Joseph and Perry, John, editors, Themes from Kaplan, pages 481–564. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989.Google Scholar
Kremer, Philip. Quantifying over propositions in relevance logic: The non-axiomatisability of primary interpretations of ∀p and ∃p. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58:334–349, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremer, Philip. Relevant identity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 28:199–222, 1999.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul A.. Semantical analysis of modal logic II. Non-normal modal propositional calculi. In Addison, J. W., Henkin, L., and Tarski, A., editors, The Theory of Models, pages 206–220. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul A.. An outline of a theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy, 72:690–716, 1975.Google Scholar
Kuklick, Bruce. The Rise of American Philosophy. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1977.Google Scholar
Kuratowski, Casimir. Sur l’operation 3:182–199, 1922.Google Scholar
Ladd-Franklin, Christine. On the algebra of logic. In Peirce, C. S., editor, Studies in Logic by Members of the John Hopkins University, pages 17–71. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1883.Google Scholar
Lance, Mark and Kremer, Philip. The logical structure of linguistic commitment II: Systems of relevant entailment commitment. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25: 425–449, 1996.Google Scholar
MacLane, Saunders. A logical analysis of mathematical structure. The Monist, 45: 118–130, 1935.Google Scholar
Lemmon, E. J.. New foundations for Lewis modal systems. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 22:176–186, 1957.Google Scholar
Lemmon, John. Beginning Logic. Thomas Nelson and Sons, London, 1965.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. Implication and the algebra of logic. Mind, 21:522–531, 1912.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. The issues concerning material implication. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, 14:350–356, 1917.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. Survey of Symbolic Logic. University of California Press, Berkeley, first edition, 1918.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. Strict implication – An emendation. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 17:300–302, 1920.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. Facts, systems, and the unity of the world. The Journal of Philosophy, 20:141–151, 1923. Reprinted in [73, pp 383–393]. Page references are to the reprinted version.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. A pragmatic conception of the a priori. The Journal of Philosophy, 20: 169–177, 1923. Reprinted in [73, pp 231–239]. Page references are to the reprinted version.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge. Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, 1929.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. Alternative systems of logic. The Monist, 17:481–507, 1932. Reprinted in [73, pp 400–419]. Page references are to the reprinted version.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. Open Court, LaSalle, IL, 1946.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. The material and conceptual in logic and philosophy. In the C. I. Lewis papers of the Stanford Archives. Call number M0174 Box 10 Folder 8, 1948.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I.. Notes on the logic of intension. In Kallen, H. H. M. and Langer, S., editors, Structure, Method and Meaning: Essays in Honor of Henry M. Sheffer, pages 25–34. Bobbs-Merrill, New York, 1951. Reprinted in [73, pp 420–429]. Page references are to the reprinted version.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. and Langford, C. H.. Symbolic Logic. Dover, New York, first edition, 1951. Originally published in 1932.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. and Langford, C. H.. Symbolic Logic. Dover, New York, second edition, 1959.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell, Oxford, 1986.Google Scholar
Lewy, Casimir. Meaning and Modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976.Google Scholar
Logan, Shay. Notes on stratified semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 48:749–786, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacBride, Fraser. Truthmakers. In Zalta, Edward N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, Fall 2021 edition, 2021.Google Scholar
MacColl, Hugh. Symbolic Logic and Its Applications. Longmans, Green, and Co., London, 1906.Google Scholar
MacColl, Hugh. ‘If’ and ‘imply’. Mind, 17:453–455, 1908.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, John. What does it mean to say that logic is formal? PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 2000.Google Scholar
Maksimova, Larisa. A semantics for the calculus E of entailment. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 2:18–21, 1973.Google Scholar
Barcan Marcus, Ruth. The deduction theorem in a functional calculus of first order based on strict implication. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 11:115–118, 1946.Google Scholar
Barcan Marcus, Ruth. Strict implication, deducibility, and the deduction theorem. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 18:234–236, 1953.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin. Semantics for relevance logic with identity. Studia Logica, 51:1–20, 1992.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin. Classically complete modal relevant logics. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 39:165–177, 1993.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin. A star-free semantics for R. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 60:579–590, 1995.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin. CE is not a conservative extension of E. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29:263–275, 2000.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin. Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Interpretation. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdge, 2004.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin. General information in relevant logic. Synthese, 167:343–362, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, Edwin. Conjunction and relevance. Journal of Logic and Computation, 22:7–21, 2012.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin. Relevant logic and the philosophy of mathematics. Philosophy Compass, 7:481–494, 2012.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin. From iff to is: Some new thoughts on identity in relevant logic. In Başkent, Can and Ferguson, Thomas Macalay, editors, Graham Priest on Dialetheism and Paraconsistency, pages 343–363. Springer Verlag, Basel, 2019.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin and Goldblatt, Robert. An alternative semantics for quantified relevant logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71:163–187, 2006.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin and Paoli, Francesco. Logic consequence and the paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43:439–469, 2014.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin and Paoli, Francesco. C.I. Lewis, E.J. Nelson, and the modern origins of connexive logic. Organon F, 26:405–426, 2019.Google Scholar
Mares, Edwin and Standefer, Shawn. The relevant logic E and some close neighbours. The IFCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 4:695–730, 2017.Google Scholar
Maudlin, Tim. Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, 2019.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Grover. The ontological status of theoretical entitles. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 3:3–27, 1962.Google Scholar
McKinsey, J. C. C.. On the syntactic construction of systems of modal logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 10:83–94, 1944.Google Scholar
McKinsey, J. C. C. and Tarski, Alfered. The algebra of topology. Annals of Mathematics, 45:141–191, 1944.Google Scholar
Meyer, Robert K.. Entailment and relevant implication. Logique et analyse, 11:472–479, 1968.Google Scholar
Meyer, Robert K.. Metacompleteness. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 17:501–516, 1976.Google Scholar
Meyer, Robert K. and Dunn, J. Michael. E, R, and γ. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 34:460–474, 1969.Google Scholar
Meyer, Robert K. and Martin, Errol. S (for syllogism) revisited. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 16:49, 2019.Google Scholar
Meyer, Robert K. and Mortensen, Chris. Inconsistent models for relevant arithmetic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49:917–929, 1984.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E.. External and internal relations. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 20:40–62, 1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, Chris. Inconsistent Mathematics. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, 1995.Google Scholar
Nelson, Everett J.. Towards an intensional logic of propositions. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1929.Google Scholar
Nelson, Everett J.. Intensional relations. Mind, 39:440–453, 1930.Google Scholar
Nelson, Everett J.. On three logical principles in intension. The Monist, 43:268–284, 1933.Google Scholar
Nelson, Everett J.. A note on contradiction: A protest. The Philosophical Review, 45: 505–508, 1936.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1934.Google Scholar
Nolan, Daniel. Impossible worlds: A modest approach. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38:535–572, 1997.Google Scholar
Nolan, Daniel. Reflections on Routley’s ultralogic program. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 15:407–430, 2018.Google Scholar
Ono, Hiroakira. Semantics for substructural logics. In Došen, Kosta and Schröder-Heister, Peter, editors, Substructural Logics, pages 259–291. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.Google Scholar
Orlov, I.. The calculus of compatibility of propositions (in Russian). Matematicheskii Sbornik, 35:263–286, 1928.Google Scholar
Parry, William T.. Implication. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1932.Google Scholar
Parry, William T.. Analytic implication: Its history, justification and varieties. In Norman, J. and Sylvan, R., editors, Directions in Relevant Logic, pages 101–118. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989.Google Scholar
Pederson, Casper-Emil T., Albrechtsen, Anders, Etter, Paul D., Johnson, Eric A., Orlando, Ludovic, Chikhi, Louns, Siegismund, Hans R., and Heller, Rasmus. Southern African origin and cryptic structure in the highly mobile plains zebra. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 2:491–498, 2018.Google Scholar
Post, Emil. Introduction to a general theory of propositions. American Journal of Mathematics, 43:163–185, 1921.Google Scholar
Post, Emil L.. Introduction to a general theory of elementary propositions. PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York, 1921.Google Scholar
Priest, Graham. The logic of paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8:219–241, 1979.Google Scholar
Priest, Graham. What is a non-normal world? Logique et analyse, 139:291–302, 1992.Google Scholar
Priest, Graham. Inconsistent models of arithmetic, Part I. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 26:223–235, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, Graham. An Introduction to Non-classical Logic: From If to Is. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2008.Google Scholar
Priest, Graham. Mission impossible. In Weiss, Yale and Padro, Romina, editors, Saul Kripke on Modal Logic. Springer Verlag, Basel, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O.. Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60:20–43, 1951. Reprinted in [170].Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O.. Reply to Professor Marcus. Synthese, 13:323–330, 1961.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O.. From a Logical Point of View. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, third edition, 1980.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O.. Mathematical Logic. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P.. The foundations of mathematics. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 25:338–384, 1925. Reprinted in [174]. Page references are to the reprinted version.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P.. Theories. In [174], pages 112–139. Originally written in 1929 and published posthumously in 1931.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P.. Philosophical Papers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. Edited by Mellor, D. H..Google Scholar
Read, Steven. Relevant Logic: The Philosophical Interpretation of Inference. Blackwell, Oxford, 1988.Google Scholar
Read, Stephen. Hugh MacColl and the algebra of strict implication. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3:53–84, 1998.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Macmillan, London, 1947.Google Scholar
Restall, Greg. Introduction to Substructural Logics. Routledge, London, 2000.Google Scholar
Restall, Greg. Multiple conclusions. Analysis and Metaphysics, 6:14–34, 2007.Google Scholar
Restall, Greg and Russell, Gillian. Barriers to implication. In Pigden, Charles, editor, Hume on Is and Ought, pages 243–258. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010.Google Scholar
Ripley, David. Extending classical logic with transparent truth. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5:354–378, 2012.Google Scholar
Routley, Richard. Ultralogic and Universal: The Sylvan Jungle, volume 4. Springer Verlag, Basel, 2019. Edited by Weber, Zach.Google Scholar
Routley, Richard and Meyer, Robert K.. Semantics for entailment II. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1:53–73, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Routley, Richard and Meyer, Robert K.. Dialectical logic, classical logic, and the consistency of the world. Studies in Soviet Thought, 16:1–25, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. George Allen and Unwin, London, 1919.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. The Analysis of Matter. Dover, New York, 1954. Reprint of the 1927 book.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1985.Google Scholar
Russell, Gillian. The justification of the basic laws of logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44:793–803, 2015.Google Scholar
Sandgren, Alexander and Tanaka, Koji. Two kinds of logical impossibility. Noûs, 54: 795–806, 2020.Google Scholar
Scott, Dana. Engendering an illusion of understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 68: 787–807, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw-Kwei, Moh. The deduction theorem and two new logical systems. Methodos, 2:56–75, 1950.Google Scholar
Sher, Gila. The Bounds of Logic: A Generalized Viewpoint. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991.Google Scholar
Slaney, John. A general logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 68:74–89, 1990.Google Scholar
Smiley, Timothy J.. Entailment and deducibility. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 59:233–354, 1958–1959.Google Scholar
Smiley, Timothy J.. Relative necessity. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 28:113–134, 1963.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas J. J.. Frege’s judgement stroke and the conception of logic as the study of inference not consequence. Philosophy Compass, 4:639–665, 2009.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9:315–332, 1978.Google Scholar
Standefer, Shawn. Identity in Mares-Goldblatt models for quantified relevant logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 50:1389–1415, 2021.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. The search for philosophical understanding of scientific theories. In Suppe, Frederick, editor, The Structure of Scientific Theories, pages 3–232. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, second edition, 1977.Google Scholar
Surma, Stanisław J.. The deduction theorem in certain fragments of the Lewis system S2 and the system of Feys-Von Wright. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 1, 1972.Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. Fundamental concepts of the methodology of the deductive sciences. In [203], pages 60–109. 1930.Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. On the concept of logical consequence. In [203], pages 409–420. 1936.Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938. Hackett, Indianapolis, second edition, 1983.Google Scholar
Tennant, Neil. Anti-realism and Logic: Truth as Eternal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987.Google Scholar
Urquhart, Alasdair. Semantics for relevance logics. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37:159–169, 1972.Google Scholar
Urquhart, Alasdair. Intensional languages via nominalization. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 63:186–192, 1982.Google Scholar
Urquhart, Alasdair. Relevance logic: Problems open and closed. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 13:11–20, 2016.Google Scholar
Urquhart, Alasdair. The story of γ. In Bimbó, K., editor, J. Michael Dunn on Information Based Logics, pages 93–105. Springer, Basel, 2016.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C.. The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C.. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989.Google Scholar
Verelst, Karin. Newton versus Leibniz: Intransparency versus inconsistency. Synthese, 191:2907–2940, 2014.Google Scholar
Vickers, Peter. Understanding Inconsistent Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.Google Scholar
Visser, Albert. Four-valued semantics and the liar. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 13:181–212, 1984.Google Scholar
Wansing, Heinrich and Unterhuber, Matthias. Connexive conditional logic, part I. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 28:567–610, 2019.Google Scholar
Weber, Zach. Transfinite numbers in paraconsistent set theory. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 3:71–92, 2010.Google Scholar
Weiss, Yale. Connexive extensions of regular conditional logic. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 28:611–627, 2019.Google Scholar
Weiss, Yale. New(ish) foundations for theories of entailment. In Weiss, Yale and Padro, Romina, editors, Saul Kripke on Modal Logic. Springer Verlag, Basel, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Alfred N. and Russell, Bertrand. Principia Mathematica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, first edition, 1910–1913. (Merchant Books reprint, 2009).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Routledge, London, 1974.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Edwin Mares, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Book: The Logic of Entailment and its History
  • Online publication: 08 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009375283.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Edwin Mares, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Book: The Logic of Entailment and its History
  • Online publication: 08 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009375283.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Edwin Mares, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Book: The Logic of Entailment and its History
  • Online publication: 08 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009375283.017
Available formats
×