English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

I believe it to be an underlying principle of logical theory that when a correct reasoning is involved the conclusion cannot be just anything; what can be inferred depends upon what premises we have. We are faced, in a rather imprecise manner, with the requirement that the premises be relevant to the conclusion if we are to have a good inference. This is not, of course, a proof that deducibility implies relevance but an attempt to make explicit what I think is usually considered a necesary condition for a correct deduction. But it is not altogether clear what kind of "relevance" should exist between premises and their conclusion. For instance, in propositional logic the kind of relevance Anderson and Belnap (A&B) are interested in is closely related to the notions of "using in a proof' and "variable-sharing". A is relevant to B iff B can be inferred from (not just under) A; that is, iff A could be used in a proof of B from A. For instance, A&B reject A -+ (B -+ B) because they believe that A may be irrelevant to (B -+ B) in the sense that A is not used in arriving to (B -+B). With respect to the requirement of variable-sharing, A&B believe that in order to infer B from A it is necessary that A and B have some common meaning content and since they also think that in propositional logic commonality of meaning is carried by commonality of propositional variables, they conclude that A and B should share at least one propo-

Deducibility Implies Relevance? A Cautious Answer (On Professor Orayen's Criticisms of Relevant