Analyticity, Balance and Non-admissibility of Cut in Stoic Logic

Studia Logica 107 (2):375-397 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper shows that, for the Hertz–Gentzen Systems of 1933, extended by a classical rule T1 and using certain axioms, all derivations are analytic: every cut formula occurs as a subformula in the cut’s conclusion. Since the Stoic cut rules are instances of Gentzen’s Cut rule of 1933, from this we infer the decidability of the propositional logic of the Stoics. We infer the correctness for this logic of a “relevance criterion” and of two “balance criteria”, and hence that a particular derivable sequent has no derivation that is “normal” in the sense that the first premiss of each cut is cut-free. We also infer that Cut is not admissible in the Stoic system, based on the standard Stoic axioms, the T1 rule and the instances of Cut with just two antecedent formulae in the first premiss. OPEN ACCESS

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 107,592

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Stoic Sequent Logic and Proof Theory.Susanne Bobzien - 2019 - History and Philosophy of Logic 40 (3):234-265.
Logic: The Stoics (Part Two).Susanne Bobzien - 1999 - In Keimpe Algra, Jonathan Barnes, Jaap Mansfeld & Malcolm Schofield, The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
LEt ® , LR °[^( ~ )], LK and cutfree proofs.Katalin Bimbó - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (5):557-570.
Aspects of analytic deduction.Athanassios Tzouvaras - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):581-596.
A Cut-free Gentzen Formulation Of The Modal Logic S5.T. Braüner - 2000 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 8 (5):629-643.
A cut-elimination proof in intuitionistic predicate logic.Mirjana Borisavljević - 1999 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 99 (1-3):105-136.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-04-20

Downloads
125 (#186,932)

6 months
7 (#695,591)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Susanne Bobzien
University of Oxford

Citations of this work

Stoic Sequent Logic and Proof Theory.Susanne Bobzien - 2019 - History and Philosophy of Logic 40 (3):234-265.
Sextus Empiricus' Fourth Conditional and Containment Logic.Yale Weiss - 2019 - History and Philosophy of Logic 40 (4):307-322.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Relevant Logic : a Philosophical Examination of Inference.Stephen Read - 1988 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 179 (4):656-656.
Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. II.Gerhard Gentzen - 1935 - Mathematische Zeitschrift 39:405–431.
Contraction-free sequent calculi for intuitionistic logic.Roy Dyckhoff - 1992 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 57 (3):795-807.
On the completeness of non-philonian stoic logic.Peter Milne - 1995 - History and Philosophy of Logic 16 (1):39-64.

View all 6 references / Add more references