scholarly journals Graded Modal Operators Defined in an Extended Fuzzy-Measure-Based Model as a Family of Minimal Models for Modal Logic

1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 661-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tetsuya MURAI ◽  
Masaaki MIYAKOSHI ◽  
Masaru SHIMBO
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Fuzzy Measure ◽  
Minimal Models ◽  
Modal Operators

scholarly journals Formula size games for modal logic and μ-calculus

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 1311-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauri T Hella ◽  
Miikka S Vilander
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Optimal Strategy ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Kripke Models ◽  
First Order ◽  
Modal Operators ◽  
Crucial Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Person Game

Abstract We propose a new version of formula size game for modal logic. The game characterizes the equivalence of pointed Kripke models up to formulas of given numbers of modal operators and binary connectives. Our game is similar to the well-known Adler–Immerman game. However, due to a crucial difference in the definition of positions of the game, its winning condition is simpler, and the second player does not have a trivial optimal strategy. Thus, unlike the Adler–Immerman game, our game is a genuine two-person game. We illustrate the use of the game by proving a non-elementary succinctness gap between bisimulation invariant first-order logic $\textrm{FO}$ and (basic) modal logic $\textrm{ML}$. We also present a version of the game for the modal $\mu $-calculus $\textrm{L}_\mu $ and show that $\textrm{FO}$ is also non-elementarily more succinct than $\textrm{L}_\mu $.

Representability in second-order propositional poly-modal logic

2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 1039-1054 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Aldo Antonelli ◽  
Richmond H. Thomason
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Multiple Modalities ◽  
Modal Operators ◽  
Second Order Systems ◽  
Second Order Logic ◽  
Monadic Second Order Logic ◽  
Propositional System

AbstractA propositional system of modal logic is second-order if it contains quantifiers ∀p and ∃p which, in the standard interpretation, are construed as ranging over sets of possible worlds (propositions). Most second-order systems of modal logic are highly intractable; for instance, when augmented with propositional quantifiers, K, B, T, K4 and S4 all become effectively equivalent to full second-order logic. An exception is S5, which, being interpretable in monadic second-order logic, is decidable.In this paper we generalize this framework by allowing multiple modalities. While this does not affect the undecidability of K, B, T, K4 and S4, poly-modal second-order S5 is dramatically more expressive than its mono-modal counterpart. As an example, we establish the definability of the transitive closure of finitely many modal operators. We also take up the decidability issue, and, using a novel encoding of sets of unordered pairs by partitions of the leaves of certain graphs, we show that the second-order propositional logic of two S5 modalitities is also equivalent to full second-order logic.

Canonical modal logics and ultrafilter extensions

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. F. A. K. van Benthem
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Algebraic Theory ◽  
Main Tool ◽  
Modal Logics ◽  
Modal Operators ◽  
Modal Algebras ◽  
Lower Case ◽  
Elementary Classes ◽  
Preceding Discussion ◽  
Ultrafilter Extensions

In this paper thecanonicalmodal logics, a kind of complete modal logics introduced in K. Fine [4] and R. I. Goldblatt [5], will be characterized semantically using the concept of anultrafilter extension, an operation on frames inspired by the algebraic theory of modal logic. Theorem 8 of R. I. Goldblatt and S. K. Thomason [6] characterizing the modally definable Σ⊿-elementary classes of frames will follow as a corollary. A second corollary is Theorem 2 of [4] which states that any complete modal logic defining a Σ⊿-elementary class of frames is canonical.The main tool in obtaining these results is the duality between modal algebras and general frames developed in R. I. Goldblatt [5]. The relevant notions and results from this theory will be stated in §2. The concept of a canonical modal logic is introduced and motivated in §3, which also contains the above-mentioned theorems. In §4, a kind of appendix to the preceding discussion, preservation of first-order sentences under ultrafilter extensions (and some other relevant operations on frames) is discussed.The modal language to be considered here has an infinite supply of proposition letters (p, q, r, …), a propositional constant ⊥ (the so-calledfalsum, standing for a fixed contradiction), the usual Boolean operators ¬ (not), ∨ (or), ∨ (and), → (if … then …), and ↔ (if and only if)—with ¬ and ∨ regarded as primitives—and the two unary modal operators ◇ (possibly) and □ (necessarily)— ◇ being regarded as primitive. Modal formulas will be denoted by lower case Greek letters, sets of formulas by Greek capitals.

A formalisation of referentially opaque contexts

1960 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Jonathan Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Modal Operators

In most published systems of modal logic only one or two modal operators occur as undefined constants alongside the primitives of non-modal logic. But in a single informal argument many non-interdefinable modal operators may occur. E.g. in philosophy we may have ‘it is logically true that’, ‘it is analytic that’, and ‘it is physically necessary that’; and in jurisprudence or private international law we may have statements about what it is obligatory or not obligatory to do under several different systems of rules. Moreover even if the contexts of such operators are all referentially opaque, in Quine's sense [1] of being exempt from the substitutivity of truth-functional biconditionals, some are, as it were, opaquer than others, in being exempt from the substitutivity of certain non-truth-functional biconditionals as well.

Provability logic

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Visser
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Formal System ◽  
Formal Theory ◽  
Incompleteness Theorem ◽  
Provability Logic ◽  
Modal System ◽  
Modal Language ◽  
Modal Operators ◽  
Syntactic Approach

Central to Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem is his discovery that, in a sense, a formal system can talk about itself. Provability logic is a branch of modal logic specifically directed at exploring this phenomenon. Consider a sufficiently rich formal theory T. By Gödel’s methods we can construct a predicate in the language of T representing the predicate ‘is formally provable in T’. It turns out that T is able to prove statements of the form - (1) If A is provable in T, then it is provable in T that A is provable in T. In modal logic, predicates such as ‘it is unavoidable that’ or ‘I know that’ are considered as modal operators, that is, as non-truth-functional propositional connectives. In provability logic, ‘is provable in T’ is similarly treated. We write □A for ‘A is provable in T’. This enables us to rephrase (1) as follows: - (1′) □A →□□A. This is a well-known modal principle amenable to study by the methods of modal logic. Provability logic produces manageable systems of modal logic precisely describing all modal principles for □A that T itself can prove. The language of the modal system will be different from the language of the system T under study. Thus the provability logic of T (that is, the insights T has about its own provability predicate as far as visible in the modal language) is decidable and can be studied by finitistic methods. T, in contrast, is highly undecidable. The advantages of provability logic are: (1) it yields a very perspicuous representation of certain arguments in a formal theory T about provability in T; (2) it gives us a great deal of control of the principles for provability in so far as these can be formulated in the modal language at all; (3) it gives us a direct way to compare notions such as knowledge with the notion of formal provability; and (4) it is a fully worked-out syntactic approach to necessity in the sense of Quine.

scholarly journals Boulesic-Doxastic Logic

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Rönnedal
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Possible World ◽  
Doxastic Logic ◽  
Possible World Semantics ◽  
Absolute Necessity ◽  
Modal Operators ◽  
Basic Language ◽  
Tableau Systems ◽  
The Will

In this paper, I will develop a set of boulesic-doxastic tableau systems and prove that they are sound and complete. Boulesic-doxastic logic consists of two main parts: a boulesic part and a doxastic part. By ‘boulesic logic’ I mean ‘the logic of the will’, and by ‘doxastic logic’ I mean ‘the logic of belief’. The first part deals with ‘boulesic’ concepts, expressions, sentences, arguments and theorems. I will concentrate on two types of boulesic expression: ‘individual x wants it to be the case that’ and ‘individual x accepts that it is the case that’. The second part deals with ‘doxastic’ concepts, expressions, sentences, arguments and theorems. I will concentrate on two types of doxastic expression: ‘individual x believes that’ and ‘it is imaginable to individual x that’. Boulesic-doxastic logic investigates how these concepts are related to each other. Boulesic logic is a new kind of logic. Doxastic logic has been around for a while, but the approach to this branch of logic in this paper is new. Each system is combined with modal logic with two kinds of modal operators for historical and absolute necessity and predicate logic with necessary identity and ‘possibilist’ quantifiers. I use a kind of possible world semantics to describe the systems semantically. I also sketch out how our basic language can be extended with propositional quantifiers. All the systems developed in this paper are new.  

scholarly journals Modal Logic S5 Satisfiability in Answer Set Programming

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 527-542
Author(s):  
MARIO ALVIANO ◽  
SOTIRIS BATSAKIS ◽  
GEORGE BARYANNIS
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
Simplified Approach ◽  
Modal Operators ◽  
Comparable Performance ◽  
Entailment Relations ◽  
Significant Attention ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractModal logic S5 has attracted significant attention and has led to several practical applications, owing to its simplified approach to dealing with nesting modal operators. Efficient implementations for evaluating satisfiability of S5 formulas commonly rely on Skolemisation to convert them into propositional logic formulas, essentially by introducing copies of propositional atoms for each set of interpretations (possible worlds). This approach is simple, but often results into large formulas that are too difficult to process, and therefore more parsimonious constructions are required. In this work, we propose to use Answer Set Programming for implementing such constructions, and in particular for identifying the propositional atoms that are relevant in every world by means of a reachability relation. The proposed encodings are designed to take advantage of other properties such as entailment relations of subformulas rooted by modal operators. An empirical assessment of the proposed encodings shows that the reachability relation is very effective and leads to comparable performance to a state-of-the-art S5 solver based on SAT, while entailment relations are possibly too expensive to reason about and may result in overhead.

scholarly journals Counterparts, Essences and Quantified Modal Logic

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Tomasz Bigaj
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Counterpart Theory ◽  
Quantified Modal Logic ◽  
Semantic Framework ◽  
De Re ◽  
Modal Operators ◽  
Sufficiency Condition ◽  
Essential Properties ◽  
Natural Modification ◽  
Translation Scheme

It is commonplace to formalize propositions involving essential properties of objects in a language containing modal operators and quantifiers. Assuming David Lewis’s counterpart theory as a semantic framework for quantified modal logic, I will show that certain statements discussed in the metaphysics of modality de re, such as the sufficiency condition for essential properties, cannot be faithfully formalized. A natural modification of Lewis’s translation scheme seems to be an obvious solution but is not acceptable for various reasons. Consequently, the only safe way to express some intuitions regarding essential properties is to use directly the language of counterpart theory without modal operators.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document