This paper and its sequel “look under the hood” of the usual sorts of proof-theoretic systems for certain well-known intuitionistic and classical propositional modal logics. Section 1 is preliminary. Of most importance: a marked formula will be the result of prefixing a formula in a propositional modal language with a step-marker, for this paper either 0 or 1. Think of 1 as indicating the taking of “one step away from 0.” Deductions will be constructed using marked (...) formulas. Section 2 presents the model-theoretic concepts, based on those in [7], that guide the rest of this paper. Section 3 presents Natural Deduction systems IK and CK, formalizations of intuitionistic and classical one-step versions of K. In these systems, occurrences of step-markers allow deductions to display deductive structure that is covered over in familiar “no step” proof-theoretic systems for such logics. Box and Diamond are governed by Introduction and Elimination rules; the familiar K rule and Necessitation are derived (i.e. admissible) rules. CK will be the result of adding the 0-version of the Rule of Excluded Middle to the rules which generate IK. Note: IK is the result of merely dropping that rule from those generating CK, without addition of further rules or axioms (as was needed in [7]). These proof-theoretic systems yield intuitionistic and classical consequence relations by the obvious definition. Section 4 provides some examples of what can be deduced in IK. Section 5 defines some proof-theoretic concepts that are used in Section 6 to prove the soundness of the consequence relation for IK (relative to the class of models defined in Section 2.) Section 7 proves its completeness (relative to that class). Section 8 extends these results to the consequence relation for CK. (Looking ahead: Part 2 will investigate one-step proof-theoretic systems formalizing intuitionistic and classical one-step versions of some familiar logics stronger than K.). (shrink)

We show, first, that the normalization procedure for S4 modal logic presented by Dag Prawitz in [5] does not work. We then develop a new natural deduction system for S4 classical modal logic that is logically equivalent to that of Prawitz, and we show that every derivation in this new system can be transformed into a normal derivation.

We address the problem of combining intuitionistic and S4 modal logic in a non-collapsing way inspired by the recent works in combining intuitionistic and classical logic. The combined language includes the shared constructors of both logics namely conjunction, disjunction and falsum as well as the intuitionistic implication, the classical implication and the necessity modality. We present a Gentzen calculus for the combined logic defined over a Gentzen calculus for the host S4 modal logic. The semantics (...) is provided by Kripke structures. The calculus is proved to be sound and complete with respect to this semantics. We also show that the combined logic is a conservative extension of each component. Finally we establish that the Gentzen calculus for the combined logic enjoys cut elimination. (shrink)

The paper focuses on extending to the first order case the semantical program for modalities first introduced by Dana Scott and Richard Montague. We focus on the study of neighborhood frames with constant domains and we offer in the first part of the paper a series of new completeness results for salient classical systems of first order modal logic. Among other results we show that it is possible to prove strong completeness results for normal systems without the Barcan (...) Formula (like FOL + K)in terms of neighborhood frames with constant domains. The first order models we present permit the study of many epistemic modalities recently proposed in computer science as well as the development of adequate models for monadic operators of high probability. Models of this type are either difficult of impossible to build in terms of relational Kripkean semantics [40].We conclude by introducing general first order neighborhood frames with constant domains and we offer a general completeness result for the entire family of classical first order modal systems in terms of them, circumventing some well-known problems of propositional and first order neighborhood semantics (mainly the fact that many classical modal logics are incomplete with respect to an unmodified version of either neighborhood or relational frames). We argue that the semantical program that thus arises offers the first complete semantic unification of the family of classical first order modal logics. (shrink)

In this paper we study natural deduction for the intuitionistic and classical (normal) modal logics obtained from the combinations of the axioms T, B, 4 and 5. In this context we introduce a new multi-contextual structure, called T-sequent, that allows to design simple labelfree natural deduction systems for these logics. After proving that they are sound and complete we show that they satisfy the normalization property and consequently the subformula property in the intuitionistic case.

This paper develops sequent calculi for several classical modal logics. Utilizing a polymodal translation of the standard modal language, we are able to establish a base system for the minimal classical modal logic E from which we generate extensions in a modular manner. Our systems admit contraction and cut admissibility, and allow a systematic proof-search procedure of formal derivations.

A consequence relation is strongly classical if it has all the theorems and entailments of classical logic as well as the usual meta-rules (such as Conditional Proof). A consequence relation is weakly classical if it has all the theorems and entailments of classical logic but lacks the usual meta-rules. The most familiar example of a weakly classical consequence relation comes from a simple supervaluational approach to modelling vague language. This approach is formally equivalent to an (...) account of logical consequence according to which α1, ..., αn entails β just in case □α1, ..., □αn entails □β in the modal logic S5. This raises a natural question: If we start with a different underlying modal logic, can we generate a strongly classical logic? This paper explores this question. In particular, it discusses four related technical issues: (1) Which base modal logics generate strongly classical logics and which generate weakly classical logics? (2) Which base logics generate themselves? (3) How can we directly characterize the logic generated from a given base logic? (4) Given a logic that can be generated, which base logics generate it? The answers to these questions have philosophical interest. They can help us to determine whether there is a plausible supervaluational approach to modelling vague language that yields the usual meta-rules. They can also help us to determine the feasibility of other philosophical projects that rely on an analogous formalism, such as the project of defining logical consequence in terms of the preservation of an epistemic status. (shrink)

We show, first, that the normalization procedure for S4 modal logic presented by Dag Prawitz in [5] does not work. We then develop a new natural deduction system for S4 classical modal logic that is logically equivalent to that of Prawitz, and we show that every derivation in this new system can be transformed into a normal derivation.

The article focuses on representing different forms of non-adjunctive inference as sub-Kripkean systems of classical modal logic, where the inference from □A and □B to □A ∧ B fails. In particular we prove a completeness result showing that the modal system that Schotch and Jennings derive from a form of non-adjunctive inference in (Schotch and Jennings, 1980) is a classical system strictly stronger than EMN and weaker than K (following the notation for classical modalities presented (...) in Chellas, 1980). The unified semantical characterization in terms of neighborhoods permits comparisons between different forms of non-adjunctive inference. For example, we show that the non-adjunctive logic proposed in (Schotch and Jennings, 1980) is not adequate in general for representing the logic of high probability operators. An alternative interpretation of the forcing relation of Schotch and Jennings is derived from the proposed unified semantics and utilized in order to propose a more fine-grained measure of epistemic coherence than the one presented in (Schotch and Jennings, 1980). Finally we propose a syntactic translation of the purely implicative part of Jaśkowski's system D₂ into a classical system preserving all the theorems (and non-theorems) explicilty mentioned in (Jaśkowski, 1969). The translation method can be used in order to develop epistemic semantics for a larger class of non-adjunctive (discursive) logics than the ones historically investigated by Jaśkowski. (shrink)

Hyperboolean algebras are Boolean algebras with operators, constructed as algebras of complexes (or, power structures) of Boolean algebras. They provide an algebraic semantics for a modal logic (called here a {\em hyperboolean modal logic}) with a Kripke semantics accordingly based on frames in which the worlds are elements of Boolean algebras and the relations correspond to the Boolean operations. We introduce the hyperboolean modal logic, give a complete axiomatization of it, and show that it lacks the finite (...) model property. The method of axiomatization hinges upon the fact that a "difference" operator is definable in hyperboolean algebras, and makes use of additional non-Hilbert-style rules. Finally, we discuss a number of open questions and directions for further research. (shrink)

The present paper provides novel results on the model theory of Independence friendly modal logic. We concentrate on its particularly well-behaved fragment that was introduced in Tulenheimo and Sevenster (Advances in Modal Logic, 2006). Here we refer to this fragment as ‘Simple IF modal logic’ (IFML s ). A model-theoretic criterion is presented which serves to tell when a formula of IFML s is not equivalent to any formula of basic modal logic (ML). We generalize the (...) notion of bisimulation familiar from ML; the resulting asymmetric simulation concept is used to prove that IFML s is not closed under complementation. In fact we obtain a much stronger result: the only IFML s formulas admitting their classical negation to be expressed in IFML s itself are those whose truth-condition is in fact expressible in ML. (shrink)

A well-known result, going back to the twenties, states that, under some reasonable assumptions, any logic can be characterized as the set of formulas satisfied by a matrix 〈,F〉, whereis an algebra of the appropriate type, andFa subset of the domain of, called the set of designated elements. In particular, every quasi-classical modal logic—a set of modal formulas, containing the smallest classical modal logicE, which is closed under the inference rules of substitution and modus ponens—is (...) characterized by such a matrix, wherenow is a modal algebra, andFis a filter of. If the modal logic is in fact normal, then we can do away with the filter; we can study normal modal logics in the setting of varieties of modal algebras. This point of view was adopted already quite explicitly in McKinsey and Tarski [8]. The observation that the lattice of normal modal logics is dually isomorphic to the lattice of subvarieties of a variety of modal algebras paved the road for an algebraic study of normal modal logics. The algebraic approach made available some general results from Universal Algebra, notably those obtained by Jónsson [6], and thereby was able to contribute new insights in the realm of normal modal logics [2], [3], [4], [10].The requirement that a modal logic be normal is rather a severe one, however, and many of the systems which have been considered in the literature do not meet it. For instance, of the five celebrated modal systems, S1–S5, introduced by Lewis, S4 and S5 are the only normal ones, while only SI fails to be quasi-classical. The purpose of this paper is to generalize the algebraic approach so as to be applicable not just to normal modal logics, but to quasi-classical modal logics in general. (shrink)

This paper investigates partitions of lattices of modal logics based on superintuitionistic logics which are defined by forming, for each superintuitionistic logic L and classical modal logic , the set L[] of L-companions of . Here L[] consists of those modal logics whose non-modal fragments coincide with L and which axiomatize if the law of excluded middle p V p is added. Questions addressed are, for instance, whether there exist logics with (...) the disjunction property in L[], whether L[] contains a smallest element, and whether L[] contains lower covers of . Positive solutions as concerns the last question show that there are (uncountably many) superclean modal logics based on intuitionistic logic in the sense of Vakarelov [28]. Thus a number of problems stated in [28] are solved. As a technical tool the paper develops the splitting technique for lattices of modal logics based on superintuitionistic logics and ap plies duality theory from [34]. (shrink)

Non-classical generalizations of classical modal logic have been developed in the contexts of constructive mathematics and natural language semantics. In this paper, we discuss a general approach to the semantics of non-classical modal logics via algebraic representation theorems. We begin with complete lattices L equipped with an antitone operation ¬ sending 1 to 0, a completely multiplicative operation ◻, and a completely additive operation ◊. Such lattice expansions can be represented by means of a (...) set X together with binary relations ⊲, R, and Q, satisfying some first-order conditions, used to represent (L,¬), ◻, and ◊, respectively. Indeed, any lattice L equipped with such a ¬, a multiplicative ◻, and an additive ◊ embeds into the lattice of propositions of a frame (X,⊲,R,Q). Building on our recent study of "fundamental logic", we focus on the case where ¬ is dually self-adjoint (a≤¬b implies b≤¬a) and ◊¬a≤¬◻a. In this case, the representations can be constrained so that R=Q, i.e., we need only add a single relation to (X,⊲) to represent both ◻ and ◊. Using these results, we prove that a system of fundamental modal logic is sound and complete with respect to an elementary class of bi-relational structures (X,⊲,R). (shrink)

The paper generalises Goldblatt's completeness proof for Lemmon–Scott formulas to various modal propositional logics without classical negation and without ex falso, up to positive modal logic, where conjunction and disjunction, andwhere necessity and possibility are respectively independent.Further the paper proves definability theorems for Lemmon–Scottformulas, which hold even in modal propositional languages without negation and without falsum. Both, the completeness theorem and the definability theoremmake use only of special constructions of relations,like relation products. No second order (...) logic, no general frames are involved. (shrink)

We prove completeness and decidability results for a family of combinations of propositional dynamic logic and unimodal doxastic logics in which the modalities may interact. The kind of interactions we consider include three forms of commuting axioms, namely, axioms similar to the axiom of perfect recall and the axiom of no learning from temporal logic, and a Church–Rosser axiom. We investigate the influence of the substitution rule on the properties of these logics and propose a new semantics for (...) the test operator to avoid unwanted side effects caused by the interaction of the classic test operator with the extra interaction axioms. (shrink)

Intuitionistic logic provides an elegant solution to the Sorites Paradox. Its acceptance has been hampered by two factors. First, the lack of an accepted semantics for languages containing vague terms has led even philosophers sympathetic to intuitionism to complain that no explanation has been given of why intuitionistic logic is the correct logic for such languages. Second, switching from classical to intuitionistic logic, while it may help with the Sorites, does not appear to offer any advantages when dealing with (...) the so-called paradoxes of higher-order vagueness. We offer a proposal that makes strides on both issues. We argue that the intuitionist’s characteristic rejection of any third alethic value alongside true and false is best elaborated by taking the normal modal system S4M to be the sentential logic of the operator ‘it is clearly the case that’. S4M opens the way to an account of higher-order vagueness which avoids the paradoxes that have been thought to infect the notion. S4M is one of the modal counterparts of the intuitionistic sentential calculus and we use this fact to explain why IPC is the correct sentential logic to use when reasoning with vague statements. We also show that our key results go through in an intuitionistic version of S4M. Finally, we deploy our analysis to reply to Timothy Williamson’s objections to intuitionistic treatments of vagueness. (shrink)

In this two-part paper we present paranormal modal logic: a modal logic which is both paraconsistent and paracomplete. Besides using a general framework in which a wide range of logics – including normal modal logics, paranormal modal logics and classical logic – can be defined and proving some key theorems about paranormal modal logic (including that it is inferentially equivalent to classical normal modal logic), we also provide a philosophical (...) justification for the view that paranormal modal logic is a formalization of the notions of skeptical and credulous plausibility. (shrink)

In this two-parts paper we present paranormal modal logic: a modal logic which is both paraconsistent and paracomplete. Besides using a general framework in which a wide range of logics  including normal modal logics, paranormal modal logics and classical logic can be defined and proving some key theorems about paranormal modal logic (including that it is inferentially equivalent to classical normal modal logic), we also provide a philosophical justification (...) for the view that paranormal modal logic is a formalization of the notions of skeptical and credulous plausibility. (shrink)

This paper establishes a connection between structure sensitive categorial inference and classical modal logic. The embedding theorems for non-associative Lambek Calculus and the whole class of its weak Sahlqvist extensions demonstrate that various resource sensitive regimes can be modelled within the framework of unimodal temporal logic. On the semantic side, this requires decomposition of the ternary accessibility relation to provide its correlation with standard binary Kripke frames and models.

We propose a first order modal logic, theQS4E-logic, obtained by adding to the well-known first order modal logicQS4 arigidity axiom schemas:A → □A, whereA denotes a basic formula. In this logic, thepossibility entails the possibility of extending a given classical first order model. This allows us to express some important concepts of classical model theory, such as existential completeness and the state of being infinitely generic, that are not expressibile in classical first order logic. Since (...) they can be expressed in -logic, we are also induced to compare the expressive powers ofQS4E and . Some questions concerning the power of rigidity axiom are also examined. (shrink)

Standard unary modal logic and binary modal logic, i.e. modal logic with one binary operator, are shown to be definitional extensions of one another when an additional axiom |$U$| is added to the basic axiomatization of the binary side. This is a strengthening of our previous results. It follows that all unary modal logics extending Classical Modal Logic, in other words all unary modal logics with a neighborhood semantics, can equivalently be (...) seen as binary modal logics. This in particular applies to standard modal logics, which can be given simple natural axiomatizations in binary form. We illustrate this in the logic K. We call such logics binary expansions of the unary modal logics. There are many more such binary expansions than the ones given by the axiom |$U$|⁠. We initiate an investigation of the properties of these expansions and in particular of the maximal binary expansions of a logic. Our results directly imply that all sub- and superintuitionistic logics with a standard modal companion also have binary modal companions. The latter also applies to the weak subintuitionistic logic WF of our previous papers. This logic doesn’t seem to have a unary modal companion. (shrink)

For a novice this book is a mathematically-oriented introduction to modal logic, the discipline within mathematical logic studying mathematical models of reasoning which involve various kinds of modal operators. It starts with very fundamental concepts and gradually proceeds to the front line of current research, introducing in full details the modern semantic and algebraic apparatus and covering practically all classical results in the field. It contains both numerous exercises and open problems, and presupposes only minimal knowledge in (...) mathematics. A specialist can use the book as a source of references. Results and methods of many directions in propositional modal logic, from completeness and duality to algorithmic problems, are collected and systematically presented in one volume. (shrink)

A notable early result of David Makinson establishes that every monotone modal logic can be extended to LI, LV, or LF, and every antitone logic can be extended to LN, LV, or LF, where LI, LN, LV, and LF are logics axiomatized, respectively, by the schemas □α↔α, □α↔¬α, □α↔⊤, and □α↔⊥. We investigate logics that are both monotone and antitone (hereafter amphitone). There are exactly three: LV, LF, and the minimum amphitone logic AM axiomatized by the schema (...) □α→□β. These logics, along with LI, LN, and a wider class of “extensional” logics, bear close affinities to classical propositional logic. Characterizing those affinities reveals differences among several accounts of equivalence between logics. Some results about amphitone logics do not carry over when logics are construed as consequence or generalized (“multiple-conclusion”) consequence relations on languages that may lack some or all of the nonmodal connectives. We close by discussing these divergences and conditions under which our results do carry over. (shrink)

We give an equivalent formulation of topological algebras, interpreting S4, as boolean algebras equipped with intuitionistic negation. The intuitionistic substructure—Heyting algebra—of such an algebra can be then seen as an “epistemic subuniverse”, and modalities arise from the interaction between the intuitionistic and classical negations or, we might perhaps say, between the epistemic and the ontological aspects: they are not relations between arbitrary alternatives but between intuitionistic substructures and one common world governed by the classical (propositional) logic. As an (...) example of the generality of the obtained view, we apply it also to S5. We give a sound, complete and decidable sequent calculus, extending a classical system with the rules for handling the intuitionistic negation, in which one can prove all classical, intuitionistic and S4 valid sequents. (shrink)

One can add the machinery of relation symbols and terms to a propositional modal logic without adding quantifiers. Ordinarily this is no extension beyond the propositional. But if terms are allowed to be non-rigid, a scoping mechanism (usually written using lambda abstraction) must also be introduced to avoid ambiguity. Since quantifiers are not present, this is not really a first-order logic, but it is not exactly propositional either. For propositional logics such as K, T and D, adding such (...) machinery produces a decidable logic, but adding it to S5 produces an undecidable one. Further, if an equality symbol is in the language, and interpreted by the equality relation, logics from K4 to S5 yield undecidable versions. (Thus transitivity is the villain here.) The proof of undecidability consists in showing that classical first-order logic can be embedded. (shrink)

Let K be the least normal modal logic and BK its Belnapian version, which enriches K with ‘strong negation’. We carry out a systematic study of the lattice of logics containing BK based on: • introducing the classes of so-called explosive, complete and classical Belnapian modal logics; • assigning to every normal modal logic three special conservative extensions in these classes; • associating with every Belnapian modal logic its explosive, complete and classical (...) counterparts. We investigate the relationships between special extensions and counterparts, provide certain handy characterisations and suggest a useful decomposition of the lattice of logics containing BK. (shrink)

In the present paper we deal with subintuitionistic logics and their modal companions. In particular, we introduce nested calculi for subintuitionistic systems and for modal logics in the S5 modal cube ranging from K to S4. The latter calculi differ from standard nested systems, as there are multiple rules handling the modal operator. As an upshot, we get a purely syntactic proof of the Gödel-McKinsey-Tarski embedding which preserves the structure and the height of the (...) derivations. Finally, we obtain a conservativity result for classical logic over a weak subintuitionistic system. (shrink)

In this paper, the predicate counterparts, defined both axiomatically and semantically by means of Kripke frames, of the modal propositional logics $\textbf {GL}$, $\textbf {Grz}$, $\textbf {wGrz}$ and their extensions are considered. It is proved that the set of semantical consequences on Kripke frames of every logic between $\textbf {QwGrz}$ and $\textbf {QGL.3}$ or between $\textbf {QwGrz}$ and $\textbf {QGrz.3}$ is $\Pi ^1_1$-hard even in languages with three (sometimes, two) individual variables, two (sometimes, one) unary predicate letters, and (...) a single proposition letter. As a corollary, it is proved that infinite families of modal predicate axiomatic systems, based on the classical first-order logic and the modal propositional logics $\textbf {GL}$, $\textbf {Grz}$, $\textbf {wGrz}$ are not Kripke complete. Both $\Pi ^1_1$-hardness and Kripke incompleteness results of the paper do not depend on whether the logics contain the Barcan formula. (shrink)

In this paper, we study three representations of lattices by means of a set with a binary relation of compatibility in the tradition of Ploščica. The standard representations of complete ortholattices and complete perfect Heyting algebras drop out as special cases of the first representation, while the second covers arbitrary complete lattices, as well as complete lattices equipped with a negation we call a protocomplementation. The third topological representation is a variant of that of Craig, Haviar, and Priestley. We then (...) extend each of the three representations to lattices with a multiplicative unary modality; the representing structures, like so-called graph-based frames, add a second relation of accessibility interacting with compatibility. The three representations generalize possibility semantics for classical modal logics to non-classical modal logics, motivated by a recent application of modal orthologic to natural language semantics. (shrink)

The present monograph is a slightly revised version of my Habilitations schrift Proof-theoretic Aspects of Intensional and Non-Classical Logics, successfully defended at Leipzig University, November 1997. It collects work on proof systems for modal and constructive logics I have done over the last few years. The main concern is display logic, a certain refinement of Gentzen's sequent calculus developed by Nuel D. Belnap. This book is far from offering a comprehensive presentation of generalized sequent systems for (...) modal logics broadly conceived. The proof-theory of non-classical logics is a rapidly developing field, and even the generalizations of the ordinary notion of sequent listed in Chapter 1 can hardly be presented in great detail within a single volume. In addition to further investigating the various approaches toward generalized Gentzen systems, it is important to compare them and to discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages. An initial attempt at bringing together work on different kinds of proof systems for modal logics has been made in [188]. Another step in the same direction is [196]. Since Chapter 1 contains introductory considerations and, moreover, every remaining chapter begins with some surveying or summarizing remarks, in this preface I shall only emphasize a relation to philosophy that is important to me, register the sources of papers that have entered this book in some form or another, and acknowledge advice and support. (shrink)

Part 1 [Hodes, 2021] “looked under the hood” of the familiar versions of the classical propositional modal logic K and its intuitionistic counterpart. This paper continues that project, addressing some familiar classical strengthenings of K and GL), and their intuitionistic counterparts. Section 9 associates two intuitionistic one-step proof-theoretic systems to each of the just mentioned intuitionistic logics, this by adding for each a new rule to those which generated IK in Part 1. For the systems associated (...) with the intuitionistic counterparts of D and T, these rules are “pure one-step”: their schematic formulations does not use □ or ♢. For the systems associated with the intuitionistic counterparts of K4, etc., these rules meet these conditions: neither □ nor ♢ is iterated; none use both □ and ♢. The join of the two systems associated with each of these familiar logics is the full one-step system for that intuitionistic logic. And further “blended” intuitionistic systems arise from joining these systems in various ways. Adding the 0-version of Excluded Middle to their intuitionistic counterparts yields the one-step systems corresponding to the familiar classical logics. Each proof-theoretic system defines a consequence relation in the obvious way. Section 10 examines inclusions between these consequence relations. Section 11 associates each of the above consequence relations with an appropriate class of models, and proves them sound with respect to their appropriate class. This allows proofs of some failures of inclusion between consequence relations. Section 12 proves that the each consequence relation is complete or weakly complete, that relative to its appropriate class of models. The Appendix presents three further results about some of the intuitionistic consequence relations discussed in the body of the paper. For Keywords, see Part 1. (shrink)

It is well known that the modal logic S5 can be embedded in the classical predicate logic by interpreting the modal operator in terms of a quantifier. Wajsberg [10] proved this fact in a syntactic way. Mints [7] extended this result to the quantified version of S5; using a purely proof-theoretic method he showed that the quantified S5 corresponds to the classical predicate logic with one-sorted variable. In this paper we extend Mints' result to the basic (...) modal logic S4; we investigate the correspondence between the quantified versions of S4 (with and without the Barcan formula) and the classical predicate logic (with one-sorted variable). We present a purely proof-theoretic proof-transformation method, reducing an LK-proof of an interpreted formula to a modal proof. (shrink)

This paper examines truth diagrams for some non-classical, modal and dynamic logics. Truth diagrams are diagrammatic and visual ways to represent logical truth akin to truth tables, developed by Peter C.-H. Cheng. Currently, it is only given for classical propositional logic. In this paper, we establish truth diagrams for Priest's Logic of Paradox, Belnap–Dunn's Four-Valued Logic, MacColl's Connexive Logic, Bochvar–Halldén's Logic of Non-Sense, Carnielli–Coniglio's logic of formal inconsistency as well as classical modal logic and (...) its dynamic extension to shed light on the semantic behaviour of some non-classical and modal logics. (shrink)

Modal logic is one of philosophy’s many children. As a mature adult it has moved out of the parental home and is nowadays straying far from its parent. But the ties are still there: philosophy is important to modal logic, modal logic is important for philosophy. Or, at least, this is a thesis we try to defend in this chapter. Limitations of space have ruled out any attempt at writing a survey of all the work going on (...) in our field—a book would be needed for that. Instead, we have tried to select material that is of interest in its own right or exemplifies noteworthy features in interesting ways. Here are some themes that have guided us throughout the writing: • The back-and-forth between philosophy and modal logic. There has been a good deal of give-and-take in the past. Carnap tried to use his modal logic to throw light on old philosophical questions, thereby inspiring others to continue his work and still others to criticise it. He certainly provoked Quine, who in his turn provided—and continues to provide—a healthy challenge to modal logicians. And Kripke’s and David Lewis’s philosophies are connected, in interesting ways, with their modal logic. Analytic philosophy would have been a lot different without modal logic! • The interpretation problem. The problem of providing a certain modal logic with an intuitive interpretation should not be conflated with the problem of providing a formal system with a model-theoretic semantics. An intuitively appealing model-theoretic semantics may be an important step towards solving the interpretation problem, but only a step. One may compare this situation with that in probability theory, where definitions of concepts like ‘outcome space’ and ‘random variable’ are orthogonal to questions about “interpretations” of the concept of probability. • The value of formalisation. Modal logic sets standards of precision, which are a challenge to—and sometimes a model for—philosophy. Classical philosophical questions can be sharpened and seen from a new perspective when formulated in a framework of modal logic. On the other hand, representing old questions in a formal garb has its dangers, such as simplification and distortion. • Why modal logic rather than classical (first or higher order) logic? The idioms of modal logic—today there are many!—seem better to correspond to human ways of thinking than ordinary extensional logic. (Cf. Chomsky’s conjecture that the NP + VP pattern is wired into the human brain.) In his An Essay in Modal Logic (1951) von Wright distinguished between four kinds of modalities: alethic (modes of truth: necessity, possibility and impossibility), epistemic (modes of being known: known to be true, known to be false, undecided), deontic (modes of obligation: obligatory, permitted, forbidden) and existential (modes of existence: universality, existence, emptiness). The existential modalities are not usually counted as modalities, but the other three categories are exemplified in three sections into which this chapter is divided. Section 1 is devoted to alethic modal logic and reviews some main themes at the heart of philosophical modal logic. Sections 2 and 3 deal with topics in epistemic logic and deontic logic, respectively, and are meant to illustrate two different uses that modal logic or indeed any logic can have: it may be applied to already existing (non-logical) theory, or it can be used to develop new theory. (shrink)

We introduce and study a variety of modal logics of parallelism, orthogonality, and affine geometries, for which we establish several completeness, decidability and complexity results and state a number of related open, and apparently difficult problems. We also demonstrate that lack of the finite model property of modal logics for sufficiently rich affine or projective geometries (incl. the real affine and projective planes) is a rather common phenomenon.

Quantum logic is only applicable to microscopic phenomena while classical logic is exclusively used for everyday reasoning, including mathematics. It is shown that both logics are unified in the framework of modal interpretation. This proposed method deals with classical propositions as latently modalized propositions in the sense that they exhibit manifest modalities to form quantum logic only when interacting with other classical subsystems.

Consider any logical system, what is its natural repertoire of logical operations? This question has been raised in particular for first-order logic and its extensions with generalized quantifiers, and various characterizations in terms of semantic invariance have been proposed. In this paper, our main concern is with modal and dynamic logics. Drawing on previous work on invariance for first-order operations, we find an abstract connection between the kind of logical operations a system uses and the kind of invariance (...) conditions the system respects. This analysis yields (a) a characterization of invariance and safety under bisimulation as natural conditions for logical operations in modal and dynamic logics, and (b) some new transfer results between first-order logic and modal logic. (shrink)

The classical propositional logic is known to be sound and complete with respect to the set semantics that interprets connectives as set operations. The paper extends propositional language by a new binary modality that corresponds to partial recursive function type constructor under the above interpretation. The cases of deterministic and non-deterministic functions are considered and for both of them semantically complete modal logics are described and decidability of these logics is established.

Variants of classical linear logics are presented based on the modal version of new structural rule !?mingle instead of the known rules !weakening and ?weakening. The cut-elimination theorems, the completeness theorems and a characteristic property named the mix separation principle are proved for these logics.

(2012). Modal logics for reasoning about infinite unions and intersections of binary relations. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics: Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 275-294. doi: 10.1080/11663081.2012.705960.

Various four- and three-valued modal propositional logics are studied. The basic systems are modal extensions BK and BS4 of Belnap and Dunn's four-valued logic of firstdegree entailment. Three-valued extensions of BK and BS4 are considered as well. These logics are introduced semantically by means of relational models with two distinct evaluation relations, one for verification and the other for falsification. Axiom systems are defined and shown to be sound and complete with respect to the relational semantics (...) and with respect to twist structures over modal algebras. Sound and complete tableau calculi are presented as well. Moreover, a number of constructive non-modal logics with strong negation are faithfully embedded into BS4, into its three-valued extension B3S4, or into temporal BS4, BtS4. These logics include David Nelson's three-valued logic N3, the four-valued logic N4 bottom, the connexive logic C, and several extensions of bi-intuitionistic logic by strong negation. (shrink)

A variety of modal logics based on the relevant logic R are presented. Models are given for each of these logics and completeness is shown. It is also shown that each of these logics admits Ackermann's rule γ and as a corollary of this it is proved that each logic is a conservative extension of its counterpart based on classical logic, hence we call them “classically complete”. MSC: 03B45, 03B46.

Modal Logic, originally conceived as the logic of necessity and possibility, has developed into a powerful mathematical and computational discipline. It is the main source of formal languages aimed at analyzing complex notions such as common knowledge and formal provability. Modal and modal-like languages also provide us with families of restricted description languages for relational and topological structures; they are being used in many disciplines, ranging from artificial intelligence, computer science and mathematics via natural language syntax and (...) semantics to philosophy. This volume presents a broad and up-to-date view of the field, with contributions covering both the foundations of modal logic itself and each of the aforementioned application areas. Complemented with an editorial introduction covering the roots of modal logic, this book is indispensable for any advanced student and researcher in non-classical logic and its applications. (shrink)

In this paper we develop a general framework to deal with abstract logics associated with a given modal logic. In particular we study the abstract logics associated with the weak and strong deductive systems of the normal modal logicK and its intuitionistic version. We also study the abstract logics that satisfy the conditionC +(X)=C( in I n X) and find the modal deductive systems whose abstract logics, in addition to being classical or (...) intuitionistic, satisfy that condition. Finally we study the deductive systems whose abstract logics satisfy, in addition to the already mentioned properties, the property that the operatorC + is classical relative to some new defined operations. (shrink)