“Negation in Relevant Logics: How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Routley Star,” in What is Negation? edited by Dov Gabbay and Heinrich Wansing, Volume 13 in the Applied Logic Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pages 53-76, 1999.

 download pdf

Negation raises three thorny problems for anyone seeking to interpret relevant logics. The frame semantics for negation in relevant logics involves a point shift operator *. Problem number one is the interpretation of this operator. Relevant logics commonly interpreted take the inference from A and ~AvB to B to be invalid, because the corresponding relevant conditional A&(~AvB)→B is not a theorem. Yet we often make the inference from A and ~AvB to B, and we seem to be reasoning validly when we do so. Problem number two is explaining what is really going on here. Finally, we can add an operation which Meyer has called Boolean negation to our logic, which is evaluated in the traditional way: x makes A true if and only if x doesn’t make A true. Problem number three involves deciding which is the real negation. How can we decide between orthodox negation and the new, Boolean negation. In this paper, I present a new interpretation of the frame semantics for relevant logics which will allow us to give principled answers to each of these questions.

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

← Displaying and Deciding Substructural Logics 1: Logics with Contraposition | Writing Archive | An Introduction to Substructural Logics →


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.



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.