(with John K. Slaney and Robert K. Meyer) “Linear Arithmetic Desecsed,” *Logique et Analyse,* 39 (1996) 379–388 (published in 1998).

In classical and intuitionistic arithmetics, any formula implies a true equation, and a false equation implies anything. In weaker logics fewer implications hold. In this paper we rehearse known results about the relevant arithmetic R#, and we show that in linear arithmetic LL# by contrast false equations never imply true ones. As a result, linear arithmetic is *desecsed*. A formula *A* which entails 0=0 is a *secondary equation*; one entailed by 0≠0 is a *secondary unequation*. A system of formal arithmetic is *secsed* if every extensional formula is either a secondary equation or a secondary unequation. We are indebted to the program `MaGIC` for the simple countermodel **SZ7**, on which 0=1 is not a secondary formula. This is a small but significant success for automated reasoning.

Do you like this, or do you have a comment? Then please
*share* or *reply* on Twitter, or
email me.

← Logical Laws | Writing Archive | Displaying and Deciding Substructural Logics 1: Logics with Contraposition →

I’m *Greg Restall*, and this is my personal website. ¶ I am the Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews.

- greg@consequently.org
- keybase.io/consequently, to sign or encrypt a message to send to me privately.
- @consequently on Twitter.
- @consequently on Instagram.
- @consequently on GitHub.

To receive updates from this site, you can subscribe to the RSS feed of all updates to the site in an RSS feed reader, or follow me on Twitter at @consequently, where I’ll update you if anything is posted.