[FOM] relevant logic and paraconsitent logic

Neil Tennant neilt at mercutio.cohums.ohio-state.edu
Thu Mar 2 16:51:49 EST 2006

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 praatika at mappi.helsinki.fi wrote:

> Quoting Edwin Mares <Edwin.Mares at vuw.ac.nz>:
> > A paraconsistent logic is any logic that rejects as valid the rule
> > scheme: A, ~A => B. 
> So, minimal logic (which is a weakening of intuitionistic logic) is a 
> paraconsistent logic.

The inference Panu wishes his reader to draw is one with which I concur:
the minimal-logic inference "A, not-A, therefore not-B" should count as
just as irrelevant as the intuitionistic inference "A, not A, therefore

In neither CR nor IR does either of those inferences hold.

Neil Tennant

More information about the FOM mailing list