Sequent Calculi for the Propositional Logic of HYPE

Studia Logica 110 (3):1-35 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper we discuss sequent calculi for the propositional fragment of the logic of HYPE. The logic of HYPE was recently suggested by Leitgeb as a logic for hyperintensional contexts. On the one hand we introduce a simple \-system employing rules of contraposition. On the other hand we present a \-system with an admissible rule of contraposition. Both systems are equivalent as well as sound and complete proof-system of HYPE. In order to provide a cut-elimination procedure, we expand the calculus by connections as introduced in Kashima and Shimura.

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: 104,766

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

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-11-17

Downloads
48 (#507,241)

6 months
4 (#1,018,094)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Martin Fischer
Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München

References found in this work

Basic proof theory.A. S. Troelstra - 2000 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Helmut Schwichtenberg.
Proof theory.Gaisi Takeuti - 1987 - New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier Science Pub. Co..
HYPE: A System of Hyperintensional Logic.Hannes Leitgeb - 2019 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 48 (2):305-405.
Proof Theory.Gaisi Takeuti - 1990 - Studia Logica 49 (1):160-161.
Routley Star and Hyperintensionality.Sergei Odintsov & Heinrich Wansing - 2020 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 50 (1):33-56.

View all 7 references / Add more references