Jon Michael Dunn

(1941 - 2021)

A ternary relation is often used nowadays to interpret an implication connective of a logic, a practice that became dominant in the semantics of relevance logics. This paper examines two early manuscripts --- one by Routley, another by Meyer --- in which they were developing set-theoretic semantics for various relevance logics. A standard presentation of a ternary relational semantics for, let us say, the logic of relevant implication R is quite illuminating, yet the invention of this semantics was fraught with false starts. Meyer's manuscript, in which he builds on some ideas from Routley's manuscript, essentially contains a relational semantics for which R^{ot} is sound and complete.

Four-valued semantics proved useful in many contexts from relevance logics to reasoning about computers. We extend this approach further. A sequent calculus is defined with logical connectives conjunction and disjunction that do not distribute over each other. We give a sound and complete semantics for this system and formulate the same logic as a tableaux system. Intensional conjunction and its residuals can be added to the sequent calculus straightforwardly. We extend a simplified version of the earlier semantics for this system and prove soundness and completeness. Then, with some modifications to this semantics, we arrive at a mathematically elegant yet powerful semantics that we call generalized Kripke semantics

In spite of a powerful tradition, more than two thousand years old, that in a valid argument the premises must be relevant to the conclusion, twentieth-century logicians neglected the concept of relevance until the publication of Volume I of this monumental work. Since that time relevance logic has achieved an important place in the field of philosophy: Volume II of Entailment brings to a conclusion a powerful and authoritative presentation of the subject by most of the top people working in the area. Originally the aim of Volume II was simply to cover certain topics not treated in the first volume--quantification, for example--or to extend the coverage of certain topics, such as semantics. However, because of the technical progress that has occurred since the publication of the first volume, Volume II now includes other material. The book contains the work of Alasdair Urquhart, who has shown that the principal sentential systems of relevance logic are undecidable, and of Kit Fine, who has demonstrated that, although the first-order systems are incomplete with respect to the conjectured constant domain semantics, they are still complete with respect to a semantics based on "arbitrary objects." Also presented is important work by the other contributing authors, who are Daniel Cohen, Steven Giambrone, Dorothy L. Grover, Anil Gupta, Glen Helman, Errol P. Martin, Michael A. McRobbie, and Stuart Shapiro. Robert G. Wolf's bibliography of 3000 items is a valuable addition to the volume. Originally published in 1992. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

The implicational fragment of the logic of relevant implication, $R_\to$ is known to be decidable. We show that the implicational fragment of the logic of ticket entailment, $T_\to$ is decidable. Our proof is based on the consecution calculus that we introduced specifically to solve this 50-year old open problem. We reduce the decidability problem of $T_\to$ to the decidability problem of $R_\to$. The decidability of $T_\to$ is equivalent to the decidability of the inhabitation problem of implicational types by combinators over the base $\{\textsf{B},\textsf{B}',\textsf{I},\textsf{W}\}$.

The paper considers certain extensions of the system LC introduced in Dunn & Meyer 1997. LC is a structurally free system, but it has combinators as formulas in the place of structural rules. We consider two ways to extend LC with conjunction and disjunction depending on whether they distribute over each other or not. We prove the elimination theorem for the systems. At the end of the paper we give a Routley-Meyer style semantics for the distributive extension, including some new definitions and an algorithm which are used in proving a representation theorem in general, i.e., for arbitrary combinators.

Both I and Belnap, motivated the "Belnap-Dunn 4-valued Logic" by talk of the reasoner being simply "told true" (T) and simply "told false" (F), which leaves the options of being neither "told true" nor "told false" (N), and being both "told true" and "told false" (B). Belnap motivated these notions by consideration of unstructured databases that allow for negative information as well as positive information (even when they conflict). We now experience this on a daily basis with the Web. But the 4-valued logic is deductive in nature, and its matrix is discrete: there are just four values. In this paper I investigate embedding the 4-valued logic into a context of probability. Jøsang's Subjective Logic introduced uncertainty to allow for degrees of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. We extend this so as to allow for two kinds of uncertainty— that in which the reasoner has too little information (ignorance) and that in which the reasoner has too much information (conflicted). Jøsang's "Opinion Triangle" becomes an "Opinion Tetrahedron" and the 4-values can be seen as its vertices. I make/prove various observations concerning the relation of non-classical "probability" to non-classical logic.

Relevance logics are known to be sound and complete for relational semantics with a ternary accessibility relation. This paper investigates the problem of adequacy with respect to special kinds of dynamic semantics (i.e., proper relation algebras and relevant families of relations). We prove several soundness results here. We also prove the completeness of a certain positive fragment of R as well as of the first-degree fragment of relevance logics. These results show that some core ideas are shared between relevance logics and relation algebras. Some details of certain incompleteness results, however, pinpoint where relevance logics and relation algebras diverge. To carry out these semantic investigations, we define a new tableaux formalization and new sequent calculi (with the single cut rule admissible) for various relevance logics.