Paper Status Tracking
Contact us
[email protected]
Click here to send a message to me 3275638434
Paper Publishing WeChat


The Pedagogical University of Cracow, ul. Podchorazych 2, 30 - 084 Krakow, Poland


In this paper we put forward a new solution of the well-known problem of relevant logics,i.e., we construct an atomic entailment. Hence, we construct a system of predicate calculus based on the atomic entailment. Next, we establish the definition of atomic inconsistency. The atomic inconsistency establishes an infinite class of inconsistent, but non-trivial systems. In this paper we construct the new definition of the classical entailment, into the bargain.


Atomic entailment, atomic inconsistency, classical entailment, relevance.

Cite this paper


[1]       W. Ackerman. Begrundung einer strengen implication. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21:113-128, 1956.

[2]       A. R. Anderson. Completeness theorems for the system E of entailment and EQ of entailment with quantification. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 6:201-216, 1960.

[3]       A. R. Anderson and N. D. Belnap. The Pure Calculus of Entailment. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 27:19-52, 1962.

[4]       A. R. Anderson and N. D. Belnap. First degree entailments. Mathematische Annalen, 149:302-319, 1963.

[5]       A. R. Anderson and N. D. Belnap. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, volume I. Princeton University Press, 1975.

[6]       A. R. Anderson, N. D. Belnap, and J. M. Dunn. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, volume II. Princeton University Press, 1992.

[7]       R. Barcan-Marcus. Strict implication, Deducibility and the deduction theorem. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 18:234-236, 1953.

[8]       J. Beall. Truth without Detachment, 2012. A Talk delivered at Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, 14.03.2012.

[9]       K. Bimbo. Relevance Logics and Relation Algebras. In Philosophy of Logic, ed. D. Jacquette, vol. 5, pages 723-789. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2007. Included in series Handbook of the Philosophy of Science (eds. D. M.Gabbay, P. Thagard and J. Woods).

[10]    K. Bimbo, J. M. Dunn, and R. D. Maddux. Relevance Logics and Relation Algebras. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 2:102-131, 2009.

[11]    L. Borkowski.Comments on Conditional Sentences and on Material and Strict Implication, inThe Book in Honour of Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz., 102-104, Warszawa, 1964.

[12]    R. T. Brady. Entailment, classicality and the paradoxes, delivered to the Australasian Association of Philosophy Conference, A.N.U., Canberra, 1989.

[13]    Ross T. Brady. Relevant implication and the case for a weaker logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25:151-183, 1996.

[14]    Jingde Cheng. The fundamental role of entailment in knowledge representation and reasoning. Journal of Computing and Information, 2:853-873, 1996.

[15]    Jingde Cheng. Temporal relevant logic as the logic basis for reasoning about dynamics of concurrent systems. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE-SMC Annual International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, San Diego, USA, 11-14 October 1998, 1998.

[16]    Z. Czerwinski. On paradox of implication. Studia Logica, VII:264-271, 1958.

[17]    A. E. Duncan-Jones. Is strict implication the same as entailment ? Analysis, II:70-78, 1935.

[18]    J. M. Dunn. A modification of Parry's analytic implication. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 13:195-205, 1972.

[19]    Yu. L. Ershov and E. A. Palyutin. Mathematical Logic. Mir Publishers, MOSCOW, 1984.

[20]    A. Grzegorczyk. An Outline of Mathematical Logic. Fundamental Results and Notions Explained with All Details, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland/Boston-USA, PWN, Warszawa, 1974.

[21]    I. Hacking. what is strict implication ? The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 28:51-71, 1963.

[22]    R. Hirsch and Szabolc Mikulas. Positive Fragments of Relevance Logic and Algebras of Binary Relations. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4:81-105, 2011.

[23]    Anthony Hunter and S. Konieczny. Approaches to measuring inconsistent information. In Inconsistency Tolerance, 191-236, Springer, 2005.

[24]    S. A. Kripke. The problem of entailment. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 24:324, 1959.

[25]    C. I. Lewis. Implication and the algebra of logic. Mind, New Series, 21:522-531, 1912.

[26]    C. Lewy. Entailment. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 32:123-142, 1958.

[27]    S. Mccall. A new variety of implication. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 29:151-152, 1964.

[28]    R. K. Meyer. Entailment and relevant implication. Logique et Analyse, 11:472-479, 1968.

[29]    R. K. Meyer. Two questions from Anderson and Belnap. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 7:71-86, 1976.

[30]    R. K. Meyer and J. M. Dunn. Entailment and material implication. Notices of The American Mathematical Society, 15:1021-1022, 1966.

[31]    R. K. Meyer and R. Routley. Classical relevant logics (I). Studia Logica, XXXII:51-68, 1973.

[32]    J. M. MÉndez and G. Robles. Relevance Logics, Paradoxes of Consistency and the K Rule II. A Non-constructive Negation. Logics and Logical Philosophy, 15:175-191, 2006.

[33]    J. M. MÉndez, Francisco Salto, and G. Robles. Anderson and Belnap's Minimal Positive Logic with Minimal Negation. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 36:117-130, 2002.

[34]    J. Norman and R. Sylvan, Editors. Directions in Relevant Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989.

[35]    R. Z. Parks and J. R. Chidgey. Necessity and ticket entailment. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 13:224-226, 1972.

[36]    W. A. Pogorzelski. The Classical Propositional Calculus. PWN, Warszawa, 1975.

[37]    W. A. Pogorzelski. The Classical Calculus of Quantifiers. PWN, Warszawa, 1981.

[38]    W. A. Pogorzelski and T. Prucnal. The substitution rule for predicate letters in the first-order predicate calculus. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 5:77-90,1975.

[39]    G. Pottinger. On analysing relevance constructively. Studia Logica, 38:171-185, 1979.

[40]    G. Priest. Sense, Entailment and Modus Ponens. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 9:415-435, 1980.

[41]    A. N. Prior. Facts, propositions, and entailment. Mind, 57:62-68, 1947.

[42]    R. Routley. The American Plan Completed: alternative classic-style semantics, without stars, for relevant and paraconsistent logics. Studia Logica, XLIII1/2:131-158, 1984.

[43]    R. Routley and R. K. Meyer. Towards a general semantical theory of implication and conditionals. I. Systems with normal conjunctions and disjunctions and aberrant and normal negations. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 4:67-90,1975.

[44]    R. Routley and R. K. Meyer. Towards a general semantical theory of implication and conditionals. II. Systems with normal conjunctions and disjunctions and aberrant and normal negations. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 9:47-62,1977.

[45]    T. J. Smiley. Entailment and deducibility. Proceedings of The Aristotelian Society, 59:233-254, 1959.

[46]    B. Sobocinski. Axiomatization of partial system of three-valued calculus of propositions. The Journal of Computing System, 1:22-55, 1952.

[47]    T. Stepien. System S. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 15:59-65, 1983.

[48]    T. Stepien. System S. Zentralblatt für Mathematik, 471, 1983.

[49]    T. Stepien. Logic based on atomic entailment. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 14:65-71, 1985.

[50]    T. Stepien. Derivability. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 33:79-99, 1999.

[51]    T. Stepien. Logic Based On Atomic Entailment And Paraconsistency. 11th international Congress Of Logic,Methodology and Philosophy Of Science (August 1999, Krakow, Poland).

[52]    T. J. Stepien and L. T. Stepien. Atomic Entailment and Classical Entailment, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 17:317-318, 2011.

[53]    N. Tennant. Perfect validity, entailment and paraconsistency. Studia Logica, XLIII:181-200, 1984.

[54]    A. Urquhart. Semantics for relevant logics. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37:159-169, 1972.

[55]    A. Urquhart. The Undecidability of Entailment and Relevant Implication, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49:1059-1073, 1984.

[56]    A. Urquhart. Failure of Interpolation in Relevant Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22:449-479, 1993.

[57]    A. Urquhart. Anderson and Belnap's Invitation to Sin. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39:453-472, 2010.

[58]    Andreas Weiermann and Martin Bunder. Ackermannian lower bounds for a combinatorial problem related to the decidability of certain relevant logics, 2005.

[59]    P. Weingartner. Two simple ideas of relevance. In Proceedings of the Xxxth Conference on the History of Logic, Dedicated To Roman Suszko, Cracow, 19-21 October 1984, 1984.

[60]    G. Xiao and Y. Ma, Inconsistency measurement based on variables in minimal unsatisfable subsets. 2012. A Talk delivered at European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’12, France (2012).

About | Terms & Conditions | Issue | Privacy | Contact us
Copyright © 2001 - David Publishing Company All rights reserved,
3 Germay Dr., Unit 4 #4651, Wilmington DE 19804; Tel: 1-323-984-7526; Email: [email protected]