Xref: utzoo sci.math:17886 sci.logic:1319 comp.theory:2085
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!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: <1991Jun6.055742.4297@newshost.anu.edu.au>
Date: 6 Jun 91 05:57:42 GMT
Sender: news@newshost.anu.edu.au
Followup-To: gar@lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au
Organization: Philosophy Dept, University of Queensland
Lines: 23

People were discussing linear logic a while back, and
I got to thinking a few things.  One question is this
- I can understand the weakening of implicational 
principles involved in LL, but things I don't like
missing are the axioms of distributivity.  I know that 
once you drop contraction and weakening from the standard
Gentzen formulation of classical logic, distributivity
goes with it - but what is so special about that Gentzen
formulation?  My question is this - is distribution 
rejected simply because it goes with contraction and
weakening in that setup, or do LL'ers have an independent
gripe against it?  The logic C (which happens to be
LL+distributivity, but predates it) seems more 
natural to me.  I wonder why others do not see it 
that way.

Greg.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Restall	 	 | Philosophy Department, University of Queensland.
gar@lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au | Queensland, 4072.  Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------