Fwd: linear and non-linear terms

[Carl Pollard]

Hi Howard,

Good to hear from you, and look forward to reading your papers.
Did Glyn and Bob argue for no vacuous abstraction in the syntax,
or in the semantics, or both? Evidently neither of them stuck with it.
I gather you are advocating relevance logic for the semantics?

>
But banning vacuous
abstraction means that we are in a different logic (the lambda-I calculus or
relevance logic),
>>

As you're probably aware Curry advocated this too, though I don't know
whether the term "relevance logic" existed then. My philosopher
colleague here, Neal Tennant, is another big proponent of it. Has
anybody tried to base NL syntactic types on relevance logic? It didn't
occur to me to try this. If your type logic is relevant, what happens
if you add a Bool type and try to analogize to Church's simple theory
of types? Where does one go to find about the algebraic and categorical
models of releance logic?

Regards,

Carl