Abstract
The validity of an entailment has nothing to do with whether or not the components are true, false, necessary, or impossible; it has to do solely with whether or not there is a necessary connection between antecedent and consequent. Hence it is a mistake (we feel) to try to build a sieve which will “strain out” entailments from the set of material or strict “implications” present in some system of truth-functions, or of truth-functions with modality. Anderson and Belnap (1962, p. 47).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson A. R. and Belnap N. D. Jr., ‘The Pure Calculus of Entailment,’ The Journal of Symbolic Logic 27 (1962), 19–52.
Anderson A. R. and Belnap N. D. Jr., Entailment, vol. 1, Princeton (Princeton University Press), 1975.
Dunn J. M., ‘Intuitive Semantics for First-Degree Entailments and “Coupled Trees”,’ Philosophical Studies 29 (1976), 149–168.
Geach P. T., ‘Entailment,’ Aristotelean Society Supplementary Volume 32 (1958), 157–162. Reprinted in Logic Matters, Oxford (Basil Blackwell), 1972.
Geach P. T., ‘Entailment,’ The Philosophical Review 79 (1970), 237–239. Reprinted in Logic Matters, Oxford (Basil Blackwell), 1972.
Jeffrey, R. C., Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limitations, New York, 1967.
Lewy C., ‘Entailment,’ Aristotelean Society Supplementary Volume 32 (1958), pp. 123–142.
Lewy C., Meaning and Modality, Cambridge, England (Cambridge University Press), 1976.
Smiley, T. J., ‘Entailment and Deducibility,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society, n.s., 59, pp. 233–254.
Smullyan R., First-Order Logic, Berlin (Springer-Verlag), 1968.
von Wright, G. H., ‘A Note on Entailment,’ The Philosophical Quarterly 9, 363–365.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dunn, J.M. A sieve for entailments. J Philos Logic 9, 41–57 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258076
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258076