Information flow and impossible situations

Logique et Analyse

Volumn 49, Issue 196, 2006, Pages 371-398

  Sequoiah Grayson, Sebastian ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35348965142     PISSN: 00245836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Allo, P. (2005): Formalising Semantic Information: Lessons from LogicalPluralism, in G. Dodig Crnkovic and S. Stuart (eds), Computing, Philosophy, andCognitive Science, Cambridge Scholars Press
2. Austin, J. L. (1961): How to Talk: Some Simple Ways, in J. O. Urmson etPressal. (eds), Philosophical Papers, Oxford: Oxford University Press
3. Bar-Hillel, Y., and Carnap, R. (1952): An Outline of a Theory of SemanticInformation, rep. in Bar-Hillel, (1964) pp. 221-74
4. Barwise, J. (1993): Constraints, Channels, and the Flow of Informationin Peter Aczel et al. (eds), Situation Theory and its Applications, StanfordUniversity, pp. 3-27
5. Barwise, J. (1997): Information and Impossibilities, Notre Dame Journalof Formal Logic, 38, 4, pp. 488-515
6. Barwise, J., and Perry, J. (1981): Situations and Attitudes, Journal ofPhilosophy, 78, 11, pp. 668-91
7. Barwise, J., and Perry, J. (1983): Situations and Attitudes, CambridgeMA: MIT
8. Barwise, J., and Seligman, J. (1997): Information Flow: The Logic ofDistributive Systems, NY: Cambridge University Press
9. Beal, J. C. and Restall, G. (2006): Logical Pluralism, Clarendon PressOxford, New York
10. Belnap, N. D. (1977a): How a Computer Should Think, in G. Ryle (ed.)Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, Oriel Press, (1977)
11. Belnap, N. D. (1977b): A Useful Four-Valued Logic, in J. M. Dunn and GEpstein (eds), Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logics, Reidel, Dordrecht, (1977)
12. Carnap, R. (1956): Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and ModalLogic, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
13. Carnap, R. (1955): Meaning and Synonymy in Natural LanguagesPhilosophical Studies
14. Copeland, B. J. (1979): When is a Semantics Not a Semantics: Some ReasonsRoutley-Meyer Semantics for Relevance Logicfor Disliking the Routley-Meyer Semantics for Relevance Logic, Journal ofPhilosophical Logic, 8(1), pp. 319-413
15. Devlin, K. (1991): Logic and Information, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress
16. Dunn, J. M. (1971): An Intuitive Semantics for First Degree RelevantImplications (abstract), Journal of Symbolic Logic, 36, 363-363
17. Dunn, J. M. (1993): Partial Gaggles Applied to Logics with restrictedStructural Rules, in Peter Schroeder-Heister and Kosta Dosen (eds),Substructural Logics, Oxford University Press, (1993)
18. Dunn, J. M. (1994): Star and Perp: Two Treatments of Negation, in JamesE. Tomberlin (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, 7, pp. 331-57, RidgeviewPublishing Company, California, (1994)
19. Dunn, J. M. (1996): Generalised Ortho-Negation, in Heinrich Wansing(ed.), Negation: A Notion in Focus, pp. 3-26, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, (1996)
20. Gärdenfors, P. (1988): Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics ofEpistemic States, A Bradford Book, Cambridge Massachusetts, The MIT Press
21. Gregory, H. (2001): Relevance Semantics: An Approach toand Computation. BorjomiHyperintensionality, in Dick de Jongh, Henk Zeevat and Marie Nilsenová(eds), Proceedings of the 4th International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logicand Computation. Borjomi, Georgia, 2001
22. Israel D., and Perry, J. (1990): What is Information?, in P. P. Hanson(ed.), Information, Language, and Cognition, Vancouver, University of BritishColumbia Press, pp. 1-19
23. Israel D., and Perry, J. (1991): Information and Architecture, in Barwiseet al. (eds), Situation Theory and its Applications, vol. 2, Stanford
24. Mares, E. (1997a): Relevant Logic and the Theory of InformationSynthese, 109: pp. 345-60
25. Mares, E. (1997b): Who's Afraid of Impossible Worlds, Notre Dame Journalof Formal Logic, 38, 4, pp. 516-26
26. Menzel, C. (1990): Actualism, Ontological Commitment, and Possible WorldSemantics, Synthese, 85, pp. 255-89
27. Meyer, R. K., and Martin, E. P. (1986): Logic on the Australian PlanJournal of Philosophical Logic, 15, 305-32
28. Mortensen, C. (1997): Peeking at the Impossible, Notre Dame Journal ofFormal Logic, 38, 4, pp. 527-34
29. Nolan, D. (1997): Impossible Worlds: A Modest Approach, Notre DameJournal of Formal Logic, 38, 4, pp. 535-72
30. Priest, G. (2001): An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic, CambridgeCambridge University Press
31. Restall, G. (1994): A Useful Substructural Logic, Bulletin of theInterest Group in Pure and Applied Logics, 2, pp. 137-148
32. Restall, G. (1996): Information Flow and Relevant Logics, LogicLanguage, and Computation, pp. 463-77
33. Restall, G. (1997): Ways things Can't Be, Notre Dame Journal of FormalLogic, 38, 4, pp. 583-596
34. Restall, G. (2000a): An Introduction to Substructural Logics, USA/CanadaRoutledge
35. Restall, G. (2000b): Defining Double Negation Elimination, Logic Journalof the IGPL, 8 pp. 853-860
36. Routley, R., and Meyer, Robert, K. (1973): The Semantics of Entailment Iin H. Leblanc (ed.), Truth, Syntax and Modality, pp. 199-243, Amsterdam: NorthHolland Publishing Company
37. Slaney, J. (1990): A General Logic, Australasian Journal of Philosophy68, pp. 74-88
38. Vander Laan, David A. (1997): The Ontology of Impossible Worlds, NotreDame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 4, pp. 597-620
39. Zalta, E. (1997): A Classically-Based Theory of Impossible Worlds, NotreDame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 4, pp. 640-60