[FOM] relevant logic and paraconsitent logic

[Neil Tennant]

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 praatika at mappi.helsinki.fi wrote:

> Quoting Edwin Mares <Edwin.Mares at vuw.ac.nz>:
>   
> > A paraconsistent logic is any logic that rejects as valid the rule
> > scheme: A, ~A => B. 
> 
> 
> So, minimal logic (which is a weakening of intuitionistic logic) is a 
> paraconsistent logic.

The inference Panu wishes his reader to draw is one with which I concur:
the minimal-logic inference "A, not-A, therefore not-B" should count as
just as irrelevant as the intuitionistic inference "A, not A, therefore
B".

In neither CR nor IR does either of those inferences hold.

Neil Tennant