trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Ackermann's admissibility of gamma holds in relevance logic
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
1 source for · 0 against

Peer-reviewed literature demonstrates that Ackermann's rule of gamma admissibility holds within specific relevant logics and their extensions.

Evidence for · 1
2020 · cited by 2
Abstract The main object of this article is to give two novel proofs of the admissibility of Ackermann’s rule (γ) for the propositional relevant logic R. The results are established as corollaries of cut elimination for systems of tableaux for R. Cut elimination, in turn, is established both nonconstructively (as a corollary of completeness) and constructively (using Gentzen-like methods). The extensibility of the techniques is demonstrated by showing that (γ) is admissible for RQ* (R with constant domain quantifiers). The status of the admissibility of (γ) for RQ* was, to the best of the author’s knowledge, an open problem. Further extensions of these results will be explored in the sequel(s).
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:single_source:for=1+0p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. CUT AND GAMMA I: PROPOSITIONAL AND CONSTANT DOMAIN Rpeer-reviewedno side taken
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 7504 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt