[FOM] Tennant on relevant logic

[Neil Tennant]

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, A.P. Hazen wrote:

>     I have an awful feeling that two different things are being 
> discussed without  distinguishing between them.  Could Professor 
> Tennant say something about the  relation between  his "Classical 
> Relevant Logic" (and his real favorite, "Intuitionistic  Relevant 
> Logic") and the systems studied in the tradition starting with 
> Ackermann, Anderson and Belnap?

ALAN:
I did say quite a bit on this score recently in reply to an email from
Eray Ozkural
(http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2006-March/010126.html),
but that email does not seem to have been posted yet on fom.

MARTIN:
Did you receive the email in question, with the discussion of the
difference between the Anderson-Belnap systems and the systems of relevant
logic that I favor?

ERAY:
If you received a copy of that message, would you be so kind as to send it
back to me, so that I can send it to fom? (Unfortunately I didn't keep a
copy of it.)

Best,
Neil Tennant