Xref: utzoo sci.math:17473 sci.logic:1278 comp.theory:1996
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!manuel!earth.anu.edu.au!gar
From: gar@earth.anu.edu.au (Greg Restall)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Linear Logic
Keywords: Linear Logic
Message-ID: <1991May16.232218.8032@newshost.anu.edu.au>
Date: 16 May 91 23:22:18 GMT
References: <3023@puck.sw.mcc.com>
Sender: news@newshost.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University, Canberra
Lines: 25

In article <3023@puck.sw.mcc.com> meredith@puck.sw.mcc.com (LG Meredith) writes:
* Are there any widely respected introductions to Linear Logic? I'm
* simply too stupid to follow Girard's positively Joycean expositions on
* the subject. I am, however, interested in its applications to semantics
* for OOLs.

Hmm..  I can't give any assistance here, but am mildly interested
in the topic too.  Can anyone conversant in Linear Logic perhaps
summarise an introductory exposition for the net?  I'm interested
because linerar logic seems to be very close to one of my favourite
logics, C (or RW, for those who like R), basically the relevant
Logic R, without contraction. John Slaney has stated in print that
C is Linear Logic, with distribution of conjunction and disjunction
added to it.  I've never had the time or energy to show this, it being
a bit off the track of my research.  But I've noted that Girard 
fulminates against the confusions of relevant logicians, and I'd 
like to know a bit more of what he's on about.  I'd also like to
know what the Slaney result is - is it extensional disjunction
and conjunction (which distribute in C), or intensional conjunction
with extensional disjunction (which also distribute in C)?  I cannot
see why anyone ought to fulminate against any of these.  (But,
I used to think contraction was harmless too, I suppose!)  
Any enlightenment is most welcome.

Greg.