Inverses for Normal Modal Operators

Given a 1-ary sentence operator , we describe L - another 1-ary operator - as as a left inverse of in a given logic if in that logic every formula is provably equivalent to L. Similarly R is a right inverse of if is always provably equivalent to R. We investigate the behaviour of left and right inverses for taken as the operator of various normal modal logics, paying particular attention to the conditions under which these logics are conservatively extended by the addition of such inverses, as well as to the question of when, in such extensions, the inverses behave as normal modal operators in their own right.     

A Logic for Reasoning about Relative Similarity

A similarity relation is a reflexive and symmetric binary relation between objects. Similarity is relative: it depends on the set of properties of objects used in determining their similarity or dissimilarity. A multi-modal logical language for reasoning about relative similarities is presented. The modalities correspond semantically to the upper and lower approximations of a set of objects by similarity relations corresponding to all subsets of a given set of properties of objects. A complete deduction system for the language is presented.     

Undecidability and intuitionistic incompleteness

Let S be a deductive system such that S-derivability (s) is arithmetic and sound with respect to structures of class K. From simple conditions on K and s, it follows constructively that the K-completeness of s implies MP(S), a form of Markov's Principle. If s is undecidable then MP(S) is independent of first-order Heyting arithmetic. Also, if s is undecidable and the S proof relation is decidable, then MP(S) is independent of second-order Heyting arithmetic, HAS. Lastly, when s is many-one complete, MP(S) implies the usual Markov's Principle MP.An immediate corollary is that the Tarski, Beth and Kripke weak completeness theorems for the negative fragment of intuitionistic predicate logic are unobtainable in HAS. Second, each of these: weak completeness for classical predicate logic, weak completeness for the negative fragment of intuitionistic predicate logic and strong completeness for sentential logic implics MP. Beth and Kripke completeness for intuitionistic predicate or sentential logic also entail MP.These results give extensions of the theorem of Gödel and Kreisel (in [4]) that completeness for pure intuitionistic predicate logic requires MP. The assumptions of Gödel and Kreisel's original proof included the Axiom of Dependent Choice and Herbrand's Theorem, no use of which is explicit in the present article.     

Kripke Semantics, Undecidability and Standard Completeness for Esteva and Godo's Logic MTL∀

The present paper deals with the predicate version MTL of the logic MTL by Esteva and Godo. We introduce a Kripke semantics for it, along the lines of Ono's Kripke semantics for the predicate version of FL_ew (cf. [O85]), and we prove a completeness theorem. Then we prove that every predicate logic between MTL and classical predicate logic is undecidable. Finally, we prove that MTL is complete with respect to the standard semantics, i.e., with respect to Kripke frames on the real interval [0,1], or equivalently, with respect to MTL-algebras whose lattice reduct is [0,1] with the usual order.     

Algebras of Intervals and a Logic of Conditional Assertions

Intervals in boolean algebras enter into the study of conditional assertions (or events) in two ways: directly, either from intuitive arguments or from Goodman, Nguyen and Walker's representation theorem, as suitable mathematical entities to bear conditional probabilities, or indirectly, via a representation theorem for the family of algebras associated with de Finetti's three-valued logic of conditional assertions/events. Further representation theorems forge a connection with rough sets. The representation theorems and an equivalent of the boolean prime ideal theorem yield an algebraic completeness theorem for the three-valued logic. This in turn leads to a Henkin-style completeness theorem. Adequacy with respect to a family of Kripke models for de Finetti's logic, ukasiewicz's three-valued logic and Priest's Logic of Paradox is demonstrated. The extension to first-order yields a short proof of adequacy for Körner's logic of inexact predicates.     

Interactions between Knowledge,Action and Commitment within Agent Dynamic Logic

This paper considers a new class of agent dynamic logics which provide a formal means of specifying and reasoning about the agents activities and informational, motivational and practical aspects of the behaviour of the agents. We present a Hilbert-style deductive system for a basic agent dynamic logic and consider a number of extensions of this logic with axiom schemata formalising interactions between knowledge and commitment (expressing an agent s awareness of her commitments), and interactions between knowledge and actions (expressing no learning and persistence of knowledge after actions). The deductive systems are proved sound and complete with respect to a Kripke-style semantics. Each of the considered logics is shown to have the small model property and therefore decidable.Presented by Ewa Orlowska     

A Kripke Semantics for the Logic of Gelfand Quantales

Gelfand quantales are complete unital quantales with an involution, *, satisfying the property that for any element a, if a b a for all b, then a a* a = a. A Hilbert-style axiom system is given for a propositional logic, called Gelfand Logic, which is sound and complete with respect to Gelfand quantales. A Kripke semantics is presented for which the soundness and completeness of Gelfand logic is shown. The completeness theorem relies on a Stone style representation theorem for complete lattices. A Rasiowa/Sikorski style semantic tableau system is also presented with the property that if all branches of a tableau are closed, then the formula in question is a theorem of Gelfand Logic. An open branch in a completed tableaux guarantees the existence of an Kripke model in which the formula is not valid; hence it is not a theorem of Gelfand Logic.