I show how Priest and Sylvan’s simplified semantics extends from basic relevant logics to a large class of stronger logics. The completeness proof is a little tricky, given the different behaviour of the normal world in the models. This is the first paper from my Ph.D. thesis.
Alas, the file isn’t available publically. You can ask me for a copy to send you in the post, while I still have some. (And in fact, you, Fallahy, have. I forgot to answer here.)
Posted by: Greg Restall at March 28, 2006 11:23 AM
There’s a mistake in this paper, concerning the simplified semantics for the relevant logic R. Details can be found in “On Permutation in Simplified Semantics,” with Tony Roy.
Posted by: Greg Restall at April 8, 2006 12:04 PM
Hello,
I will be pleased to meet you soon in Nancy. I am interested in philosophy of Logic, but, unfortunately, I am not an expert or a “professional” logician. I admire Quine, and presently also Neil Tennant’s work. So I try to learn in relevant Logic. Your papers on this topic and your help will be very welcome. Congratulations for your nice web page.
All the best,
Jo.
Posted by: Joseph Vidal-Rosset at June 13, 2006 03:31 AM
© Greg Restall, 2002–2006 • Powered by teTeX, TeXShop, Safari, Movable Type, MT SomeDays, MultiBlog, MagpieRSS, del.icio.us, Arvo Pärt, Bruce Cockburn & you, the reader.
hello I want the simplified semantics file Regards
Posted by: Fallahy at November 23, 2005 06:06 PM