David Makinson

We investigate introduction and elimination rules for truth-functional connectives, focusing on the general questions of the existence, for a given connective, of at least one such rule that it satisfies, and the uniqueness of a connective with respect to the set of all of them. The answers are straightforward in the context of rules using general set/set sequents of formulae, but rather complex and asymmetric in the restricted (but more often used) context of set/formula sequents, as also in the intermediate set/formula-or-empty context.

Relevance logic is ordinarily seen as a subsystem of classical logic under the translation that replaces arrows by horseshoes. If, however, we consider the arrow as an additional connective alongside the horseshoe, then another perspective emerges: the theses of relevance logic, specifically the system R, may also be seen as the output of a conservative extension of the relation of classical consequence. We describe two ways in which this may be done. One is by defining a suitable closure relation out of the set of theses of relevance logic; the other is by adding to the usual natural deduction system for it further rules with ‘projective constraints’, whose application restricts the subsequent application of other rules. The significance of the two constructions is also discussed

The splitting theorem says that any set of formulae has a finest representation as a family of letter-disjoint sets. Parikh formulated this for classical propositional logic, proved it in the finite case, used it to formulate a criterion for relevance in belief change, and showed that AGMpartial meet revision can fail the criterion. In this paper we make three further contributions. We begin by establishing a new version of the well-known interpolation theorem, which we call parallel interpolation, use it to prove the splitting theorem in the infinite case, and show how AGM belief change operations may be modified, if desired, so as to ensure satisfaction of Parikh’s relevance criterion.

The concept of relevance between classical propositional formulae, defined in terms of letter-sharing, has been around for a very long time. But it began to take on a fresh life in 1999 when it was reconsidered in the context of the logic of belief change. Two new ideas appeared in independent work of Odinaldo Rodrigues and Rohit Parikh. First, the relation of relevance was considered modulo the belief set under consideration, Second, the belief set was put in a canonical form, known as its finest splitting. In this paper we explain these ideas; relate the approaches of Rodrigues and Parikh to each other; and briefly report some recent results of Kourousias and Makinson on the extent to which AGM belief change operations respect relevance. Finally we suggest a further refinement of the notion of relevance by introducing a parameter that allows one to take epistemic as well as purely logical components into account. A version of this was published in the /Journal of Applied Logic/ (Elsevier).

Input/output logics are abstract structures designed to represent conditional obligations and goals. In this paper we use them to study conditional permission. This perspective provides a clear separation of the familiar notion of negative permission from the more elusive one of positive permission. Moreover, it reveals that there are at least two kinds of positive permission. Although indistinguishable in the unconditional case, they are quite different in conditional contexts. One of them, which we call static positive permission, guides the citizen and law enforcement authorities in the assessment of specific actions under current norms, and it behaves like a weakened obligation. Another, which we call dynamic positive permission, guides the legislator. It describes the limits on the prohibitions that may be introduced into a code, and under suitable conditions behaves like a strengthened negative permission

In a previous paper we developed a general theory of input/output logics. These are operations resembling inference, but where inputs need not be included among outputs, and outputs need not be reusable as inputs. In the present paper we study what happens when they are constrained to render output consistent with input. This is of interest for deontic logic, where it provides a manner of handling contrary-to-duty obligations. Our procedure is to constrain the set of generators of the input/output system, considering only the maximal subsets that do not yield output conflicting with a given input. When inputs are authorised to reappear as outputs, both maxichoice revision in the sense of Alchourr6n/Makinson and the default logic of Poole emerge as special cases, and there is a close relation with Reiter default logic. However, our focus is on the general case where inputs need not be outputs. We show in what contexts the consistency of input with output may be reduced to its consistency with a truth-functional combination of components of generators, and under what conditions constrained output may be obtained by a derivation that is constrained at every step

In a range of contexts, one comes across processes resembling inference, but where input propositions are not in general included among outputs, and the operation is not in any way reversible. Examples arise in contexts of conditional obligations, goals, ideals, preferences, actions, and beliefs. Our purpose is to develop a theory of such input/output operations. Four are singled out: simple-minded, basic (making intelligent use of disjunctive inputs), simple-minded reusable (in which outputs may be recycled as inputs), and basic reusable. They are defined semantically and characterised by derivation rules, as well as in terms of relabeling procedures and modal operators. Their behaviour is studied on both semantic and syntactic levels