Reasoning about negligibility and proximity in the set of all hyperreals

We consider the binary relations of negligibility, comparability and proximity in the set of all hyperreals. Associating with negligibility, comparability and proximity the binary predicates N, C and P and the connectives $[N]$, $[C]$ and $[P]$, we consider a first-order theory based on these predicates and a modal logic based on these connectives. We investigate the axiomatization/completeness and the decidability/complexity of this first-order theory and this modal logic.     

Identical Twins,Deduction Theorems,and Pattern Functions: Exploring the Implicative BCSK Fragment of S5

We recapitulate (Section 1) some basic details of the system of implicative BCSK logic, which has two primitive binary implicational connectives, and which can be viewed as a certain fragment of the modal logic S5. From this modal perspective we review (Section 2) some results according to which the pure sublogic in either of these connectives (i.e., each considered without the other) is an exact replica of the material implication fragment of classical propositional logic. In Sections 3 and 5 we show that for the pure logic of one of these implicational connectives two – in general distinct – consequence relations (global and local) definable in the Kripke semantics for modal logic turn out to coincide, though this is not so for the pure logic of the other connective, and that there is an intimate relation between formulas constructed by means of the former connective and the local consequence relation. (Corollary 5.8. This, as we show in an Appendix, is connected to the fact that the ‘propositional operations’ associated with both of our implicational connectives are close to being what R. Quackenbush has called pattern functions.) Between these discussions Section 4 examines some of the replacement-of-equivalents properties of the two connectives, relative to these consequence relations, and Section 6 closes with some observations about the metaphor of identical twins as applied to such pairs of connectives.     

Two-Valued Logics of Intentionality: Temporality,Truth, Modality,and Identity

The essay introduces a non-Diodorean, non-Kantian temporal modal semantics based on part-whole, rather than class, theory. Formalizing Edmund Husserl’s theory of inner time consciousness, §3 uses his protention and retention concepts to define a relation of self-awareness on intentional events. §4 introduces a syntax and two-valued semantics for modal first-order predicate object-languages, defines semantic assignments for variables and predicates, and truth for formulae in terms of the axiomatic version of Edmund Husserl’s dependence ontology (viz. the Calculus [CU] of Urelements) introduced by The Ontology of Intentionality I & II. It then uses the §3 results to define the modalities of truth, and §5 extends the semantics to identity claims. §6 defines and contrasts synthetic a priori truths to analytic a priori truths, and §7 compares Brentano School noetic semantic and Leibnizian possible-world semantic perspectives on modality. The essay argues that the modal logics it defines semantically are two-valued, first-order versions of the type of language which Husserl viewed as the language of any ontology of experience (i.e. of any science), and conceived as the logic of intentionality.     

Completeness of S4 for the Lebesgue Measure Algebra

We prove completeness of the propositional modal logic S4 for the measure algebra based on the Lebesgue-measurable subsets of the unit interval, [0, 1]. In recent talks, Dana Scott introduced a new measure-based semantics for the standard propositional modal language with Boolean connectives and necessity and possibility operators, ^[¯]\Box and \Diamond\Diamond. Propositional modal formulae are assigned to Lebesgue-measurable subsets of the real interval [0, 1], modulo sets of measure zero. Equivalence classes of Lebesgue-measurable subsets form a measure algebra, M\mathcal M, and we add to this a non-trivial interior operator constructed from the frame of ‘open’ elements—elements in M\mathcal M with an open representative. We prove completeness of the modal logic S4 for the algebra M\mathcal M. A corollary to the main result is that non-theorems of S4 can be falsified at each point in a subset of the real interval [0, 1] of measure arbitrarily close to 1. A second corollary is that Intuitionistic propositional logic (IPC) is complete for the frame of open elements in M\mathcal M.     

About finite predicate logic

We say that an n-argument predicate P ⁿ is finite, if P is a finite set. Note that the set of individuals is infinite! Finite predicates are useful in data bases and in finite mathematics. The logic DBL proposed here operates on finite predicates only. We construct an imbedding for DBL in a special modal logic MPL. We prove that if a finite predicate is expressible in the classical logic, it is also expressible in DBL. Quantifiers are not necessary in DBL. Some simple algebraic properties of DBL are indicated.     

Tolerant, Classical, Strict

In this paper we investigate a semantics for first-order logic originally proposed by R. van Rooij to account for the idea that vague predicates are tolerant, that is, for the principle that if x is P, then y should be P whenever y is similar enough to x. The semantics, which makes use of indifference relations to model similarity, rests on the interaction of three notions of truth: the classical notion, and two dual notions simultaneously defined in terms of it, which we call tolerant truth and strict truth. We characterize the space of consequence relations definable in terms of those and discuss the kind of solution this gives to the sorites paradox. We discuss some applications of the framework to the pragmatics and psycholinguistics of vague predicates, in particular regarding judgments about borderline cases.     

Squares in Fork Arrow Logic

In this paper we show that the class of fork squares has a complete orthodox axiomatization in fork arrow logic (FAL). This result may be seen as an orthodox counterpart of Venema's non-orthodox axiomatization for the class of squares in arrow logic. FAL is the modal logic of fork algebras (FAs) just as arrow logic is the modal logic of relation algebras (RAs). FAs extend RAs by a binary fork operator and are axiomatized by adding three equations to RAs equational axiomatization. A proper FA is an algebra of relations where the fork is induced by an injective operation coding pair formation. In contrast to RAs, FAs are representable by proper ones and their equational theory has the expressive power of full first-order logic. A square semantics (the set of arrows is U×U for some set U) for arrow logic was defined by Y. Venema. Due to the negative results about the finite axiomatizability of representable RAs, Venema provided a non-orthodox finite axiomatization for arrow logic by adding a new rule governing the applications of a difference operator. We address here the question of extending the type of relational structures to define orthodox axiomatizations for the class of squares. Given the connections between this problem and the finitization problem addressed by I. Németi, we suspect that this cannot be done by using only logical operations. The modal version of the FA equations provides an orthodox axiomatization for FAL which is complete in view of the representability of FAs. Here we review this result and carry it further to prove that this orthodox axiomatization for FAL also axiomatizes the class of fork squares.     

Axiomatisation and decidability ofF andP in cyclical time

We present a Hilert style axiomatisation for the set of formulas in the temporal language withF andP which are valid over non-transitive cyclical flows of time.We also give a simpler axiomatisation using the slightly controversial irreflexivity rule and go on to prove the decidability of any temporal logic over cyclical time provided it uses only connectives with first-order tables.     

Modal Logic As Dialogical Logic

The title reflects my conviction that, viewed semantically,modal logic is fundamentally dialogical; this conviction is based on the key role played by the notion of bisimulation in modal model theory. But this dialogical conception of modal logic does not seem to apply to modal proof theory, which is notoriously messy. Nonetheless, by making use of ideas which trace back to Arthur Prior (notably the use of nominals, special proposition symbols which name worlds) I will show how to lift the dialogical conception to modal proof theory. I argue that this shift to hybrid logic has consequences for both modal and dialogical logic, and I discuss these in detail.     

Undefinability of propositional quantifiers in the modal system S4

We show that (contrary to the parallel case of intuitionistic logic, see [7], [4]) there does not exist a translation fromS4² (the propositional modal systemS4 enriched with propositional quantifiers) intoS4 that preserves provability and reduces to identity for Boolean connectives and □.     

Probability: A new logico-semantical approach

This approach does not define a probability measure by syntactical structures. It reveals a link between modal logic and mathematical probability theory. This is shown (1) by adding an operator (and two further connectives and constants) to a system of lower predicate calculus and (2) regarding the models of that extended system. These models are models of the modal systemS ₅ (without the Barcan formula), where a usual probability measure is defined on their set of possible worlds. Mathematical probability models can be seen as models ofS ₅.     

On Fork Arrow Logic and its Expressive Power

We compare fork arrow logic, an extension of arrow logic, and its natural first-order counterpart (the correspondence language) and show that both have the same expressive power. Arrow logic is a modal logic for reasoning about arrow structures, its expressive power is limited to a bounded fragment of first-order logic. Fork arrow logic is obtained by adding to arrow logic the fork modality (related to parallelism and synchronization). As a result, fork arrow logic attains the expressive power of its first-order correspondence language, so both can express the same input–output behavior of processes.     

First-order fuzzy logic

This paper is an attempt to develop the many-valued first-order fuzzy logic. The set of its truth, values is supposed to be either a finite chain or the interval 0, 1 of reals. These are special cases of a residuated lattice L, , , , , 1, 0. It has been previously proved that the fuzzy propositional logic based on the same sets of truth values is semantically complete. In this paper the syntax and semantics of the first-order fuzzy logic is developed. Except for the basic connectives and quantifiers, its language may contain also additional n-ary connectives and quantifiers. Many propositions analogous to those in the classical logic are proved. The notion of the fuzzy theory in the first-order fuzzy logic is introduced and its canonical model is constructed. Finally, the extensions of Gödel's completeness theorems are proved which confirm that the first-order fuzzy logic is also semantically complete.     

The Logic of Location

I consider the idea of a propositional logic of location based on the following semantic framework, derived from ideas of Prior. We have a collection L of locations and a collection S of statements such that a statement may be evaluated for truth at each location. Typically one and the same statement may be true at one location and false at another. Given this semantic framework we may proceed in two ways: introducing names for locations, predicates for the relations among them and an “at” preposition to express the value of statements at locations; or introduce statement operators which do not name locations but whose truth-conditional effect depends on the truth or falsity of embedded statements at various locations. The latter is akin to Prior’s approach to tense logic. In any logic of location there will be some basic operators which we can define. By ringing the changes on the topology of locations, different logical systems may be generated, and the challenge for the logician is then in each case to find operators, axioms and rules yielding a proof theory adequate to the semantics. The generality of the approach is illustrated with familiar and not so familiar examples from modal, tense and place logic, mathematics, and even the logic of games.

相似文献   

Proof Theory for Functional Modal Logic

We present some proof-theoretic results for the normal modal logic whose characteristic axiom is \(\mathord {\sim }\mathord {\Box }A\equiv \mathord {\Box }\mathord {\sim }A\). We present a sequent system for this logic and a hypersequent system for its first-order form and show that these are equivalent to Hilbert-style axiomatizations. We show that the question of validity for these logics reduces to that of classical tautologyhood and first-order logical truth, respectively. We close by proving equivalences with a Fitch-style proof system for revision theory.     

On Modal Logics of Partial Recursive Functions

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. Presented by Melvin Fitting     

The Logic of Counterpart Theory with Actuality

It has been claimed that counterpart theory cannot support a theory of actuality without rendering obviously invalid formulas valid or obviously valid formulas invalid. We argue that these claims are not based on logical flaws of counterpart theory itself, but point to the lack of appropriate devices in first-order logic for “remembering” the values of variables. We formulate a mildly dynamic version of first-order logic with appropriate memory devices and show how to base a version of counterpart theory with actuality on this. This theory is, in special cases, equivalent to modal first-order logic with actuality, and apparently does not suffer from the logical flaws that have been mentioned in the literature.     

Reasoning with Slippery Predicates

It is a commonplace that the extensions of most, perhaps all, vague predicates vary with such features as comparison class and paradigm and contrasting cases. My view proposes another, more pervasive contextual parameter. Vague predicates exhibit what I call open texture: in some circumstances, competent speakers can go either way in the borderline region. The shifting extension and anti-extensions of vague predicates are tracked by what David Lewis calls the “conversational score”, and are regulated by what Kit Fine calls penumbral connections, including a principle of tolerance. As I see it, vague predicates are response-dependent, or, better, judgement-dependent, at least in their borderline regions. This raises questions concerning how one reasons with such predicates. In this paper, I present a model theory for vague predicates, so construed. It is based on an overall supervaluationist-style framework, and it invokes analogues of Kripke structures for intuitionistic logic. I argue that the system captures, or at least nicely models, how one ought to reason with the shifting extensions (and anti-extensions) of vague predicates, as borderline cases are called and retracted in the course of a conversation. The model theory is illustrated with a forced march sorites series, and also with a thought experiment in which vague predicates interact with so-called future contingents. I show how to define various connectives and quantifiers in the language of the system, and how to express various penumbral connections and the principle of tolerance. The project fits into one of the topics of this special issue. In the course of reasoning, even with the external context held fixed, it is uncertain what the future extension of the vague predicates will be. Yet we still manage to reason with them. The system is based on that developed, more fully, in my Vagueness in Context, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006, but some criticisms and replies to critics are incorporated.     

Notes on Logics of Metric Spaces

In [14], we studied the computational behaviour of various first-order and modal languages interpreted in metric or weaker distance spaces. [13] gave an axiomatisation of an expressive and decidable metric logic. The main result of this paper is in showing that the technique of representing metric spaces by means of Kripke frames can be extended to cover the modal (hybrid) language that is expressively complete over metric spaces for the (undecidable) two-variable fragment of first-order logic with binary pred-icates interpreting the metric. The frame conditions needed correspond rather directly with a Boolean modal logic that is, again, of the same expressivity as the two-variable fragment. We use this representation to derive an axiomatisation of the modal hybrid variant of the two-variable fragment, discuss the compactness property in distance logics, and derive some results on (the failure of) interpolation in distance logics of various expressive power. Presented by Melvin Fitting     

Negation in the Context of Gaggle Theory

We study an application of gaggle theory to unary negative modal operators. First we treat negation as impossibility and get a minimal logic system Ki that has a perp semantics. Dunn's kite of different negations can be dealt with in the extensions of this basic logic K_i. Next we treat negation as “unnecessity” and use a characteristic semantics for different negations in a kite which is dual to Dunn's original one. K_u is the minimal logic that has a characteristic semantics. We also show that Shramko's falsification logic FL can be incorporated into some extension of this basic logic K_u. Finally, we unite the two basic logics K_i and K_u together to get a negative modal logic K_-, which is dual to the positive modal logic K₊ in [7]. Shramko has suggested an extension of Dunn's kite and also a dual version in [12]. He also suggested combining them into a “united” kite. We give a united semantics for this united kite of negations.