<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<item>
  <id>05872189</id>
  <dt>a</dt>
  <an>05872189</an>
  <augroup>
    <au>Hintikka, Jaakko</au>
  </augroup>
  <ti>IF logic meets paraconsistent logic.</ti>
  <so>Carnielli, Walter (ed.) et al., The many sides of logic. Selected papers of the simultaneous conferences ``CLE 30 -- 30th Anniversary of the Centre for Logic, Epistemology and the History of Science", ``XV EBL -- 15th Brazilian Logic Conference" and ``XIV SLALM -- 14th Latin-American Symposium on Mathematical Logic", Paraty, Brazil, May 11--17, 2008. London: College Publications (ISBN 978-1-904987-78-9/pbk). Studies in Logic (London) 21, 3-13 (2009).</so>
  <py>2009</py>
  <pu>London: College Publications</pu>
  <lagroup>
    <la>EN</la>
  </lagroup>
  <ccgroup>
  </ccgroup>
  <utgroup>
    <ut>paraconsistent logic</ut>
    <ut>failure of tertium non datur</ut>
    <ut>independence friendly logic</ut>
  </utgroup>
  <cigroup>
  </cigroup>
  <ligroup>
  </ligroup>
  <abgroup>
    <ab>From the text: What relevance does IF logic have for paraconsistent logics? I will not try to answer this question fully here. Instead, I will show how IF logic suggests a large number of questions concerning paraconsistent logic. Their answers will eventually show what the total impact of IF logic on the theory of paraconsistent logics will be.  The two have a different initial motivation, and they may look incommensurable. This prima facie incommensurability can be largely overcome in a simple way suggested by the failure of tertium non datur in IF logic. It makes possible a comparison which in the first place involves only a change in terminology.</ab>
    <rv></rv>
  </abgroup>
</item>