Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The subformula property—on which the claim depends—fails for systems with non-standard structural rules such as those modeling modal or relevant logics.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Many modal and relevant logic systems retain restricted subformula properties through careful rule design, limiting the claim's scope.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates structural rule modification with complete subformula failure—some non-standard systems preserve partial subformularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Successful proof systems exist for modal/relevant logics using analytic tableaux or sequent variants that maintain meaningful subformula constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Modal and relevant logics require structural rules (like weakening restrictions) that allow formulas outside the main proof to affect validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Subformula property holds only when all premises and conclusions appear in derivation steps—non-standard rules violate this requirement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Loss of subformula property in these systems necessitates different proof-theoretic tools, confirming the claim's underlying logical distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.