Modal operators and toric ideals

In the present paper, we consider modal propositional logic and look for the constraints that are imposed to the propositions of the special type $\operatorname{\Box } a$ by the structure of the relevant finite Kripke frame. We translate the usual language of modal propositional logic in terms of notions of commutative algebra, namely polynomial rings, ideals and bases of ideals. We use extensively the perspective obtained in previous works in algebraic statistics. We prove that the constraints on $\operatorname{\Box } a$ can be derived through a binomial ideal containing a toric ideal and we give sufficient conditions under which the toric ideal, together with the fact that the truth values are in $\left \{0,1\right \} $, fully describes the constraints.

The modal logic of affine planes is not finitely axiomatisable

We consider a modal language for affine planes, with two sorts of formulas (for points and lines) and three modal boxes. To evaluate formulas, we regard an affine plane as a Kripke frame with two sorts (points and lines) and three modal accessibility relations, namely the point-line and line-point incidence relations and the parallelism relation between lines. We show that the modal logic of affine planes in this language is not finitely axiomatisable.

Linear Kripke frames and Gödel logics

We investigate the relation between intermediate predicate logics based on countable linear Kripke frames with constant domains and Gödel logics. We show that for any such Kripke frame there is a Gödel logic which coincides with the logic defined by this Kripke frame on constant domains and vice versa. This allows us to transfer several recent results on Gödel logics to logics based on countable linear Kripke frames with constant domains: We obtain a complete characterisation of axiomatisability of logics based on countable linear Kripke frames with constant domains. Furthermore, we obtain that the total number of logics defined by countable linear Kripke frames on constant domains is countable.

Undecidability of First-Order Intuitionistic and Modal Logics with Two variables

We prove that the two-variable fragment of first-order intuitionistic logic is undecidable, even without constants and equality. We also show that the two-variable fragment of a quantified modal logic L with expanding first-order domains is undecidable whenever there is a Kripke frame for L with a point having infinitely many successors (such are, in particular, the first-order extensions of practically all standard modal logics like K, K4, GL, S4, S5, K4.1, S4.2, GL.3, etc.). For many quantified modal logics, including those in the standard nomenclature above, even the monadic two-variable fragments turn out to be undecidable.

Categories of frames for modal logic

§1. A complete atomic modal algebra (CAMA) is a complete atomic Boolean algebra with an additional completely additive unary operator. A (Kripke) frame is just a binary relation on a nonempty set. If is a frame, then is a CAMA, where mX = {y ∣ (∃x)(y < x Є X)}; and if is a CAMA then is a frame, where is the set of atoms of and b1 < b2 ⇔ b1 ∩ mb2 ≠∅.Now , and the validity of a modal formula on is equivalent to the satisfaction of a modal algebra polynomial identity by and conversely, so the validity-preserving constructions on frames ought to be in some sense equivalent to the identity-preserving constructions on CAMA's. The former are important for modal logic, and many of the results of universal algebra apply to the latter, so it is worthwhile to fix precisely the sense of the equivalence.The most important identity-preserving constructions on CAMA's can be described in terms of homomorphisms and complete homomorphisms. Let and be the categories of CAMA's with homomorphisms and complete homomorphisms, respectively. We shall define categories and of frames with appropriate morphisms, and show them to be dual respectively to and . Then we shall consider certain identity-preserving constructions on CAMA's and attempt to describe the corresponding validity-preserving constructions on frames.The proofs of duality involve some rather detailed calculations, which have been omitted. All the category theory a reader needs to know is in the first twenty pages of [7].