Talk:Relevance logic

message: Where someone wrote "Details need to be filled in", is that part of the description of how relevance logic works, or is a meta comment, as suggested by the italics.  Meta-comments should instead be tags, right?  If you think it was meant to be a meta-comment, would someone please change it to the appropriate wiki tag.  Feel free to delete this talk section once resolved.  --2602:306:C414:CA30:4C99:3DEC:BD30:794A (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out; I've converted it into a wiki comment for future editors. --Mark viking (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Details need to be filled in" 

message: Could we please have a section on which axioms of classical logic are excluded from relevance logic! In particular, implicational propositional calculus uses modus ponens (which is included here) and the axiom schemas:
* P → (Q → P)
* (P → (Q → R)) → ((P → Q) → (P → R)) and
* ((P → Q) → P) → P.
So I would be especially interested in these schemas — which of them are not allowed in relevance logic? And why? JRSpriggs (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It might make more sense for that to go in a paragraph or subsection of the Axiom system section. It could only feasibly comment on a few axioms from relatively common axiomatizations of classical or intuitionistic logic, such as the initial three above. Inferential (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is missing? 

message: In paraconsistent logic#Relation to other logics, it gives a simple characterization of relevance logic which I do not see in this article. To wit, "A logic is relevant iff it satisfies the following condition: if A → B is a theorem, then A and B share a non-logical constant.". Is this correct? If so, should we not add it to this article? JRSpriggs (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the variable sharing principle and it is considered to be a necessary condition for relevance. Edwing Mares author of the Relevance Logic article at SEP, says that some additional semantic criterion is necessary (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/).  I think there are quite a few logicians, especially proof theorists, who treat the variable sharing principle as sufficient.  — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple characterization of relevance logic 

message: I propose that Strict_logic be either merged into Relevance_logic, or deleted.
Strict_logic does not include any citations and has largely been that way since 2014.
Pinging users who have edited Strict_logic
 Please weigh in on this merge proposal.
Poll (select any combination of Merge, No, or Delete)
* Merge or Delete – Strict_logic contains nothing of substance, in the first sentence it states "Strict logic is essentially synonymous with relevant logic [...]". -- 
* No -- That first clause is contradicted by the rest of the content of the article. It says "ordinary logic without Disjunction introduction", but this article specifically allow disjunction introduction. It also says "linear logic with contraction", but relevance logic lacks many features of linear logic specifically the many varieties of operators. Indeed, these two parts of the article appears to contradict each other, suggesting that the article is incoherent and should be deleted. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal