scholarly journals Paranormal modal logic – Part II: K?, K and Classical Logic and other paranormal modal systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Sousa Silvestre
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Classical Logic ◽  
Modal Systems

On finite and infinite modal systems

1938 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. West Churchman
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Modal Operator ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Modal Systems ◽  
Complex Modal

In Oskar Becker's Zur Logik der Modalitäten four systems of modal logic are considered. Two of these are mentioned in Appendix II of Lewis and Langford's Symbolic logic. The first system is based on A1–8 plus the postulate,From A7: ∼◊p⊰∼p we can prove the converse of C11 by writing ∼◊p for p, and hence deriveThe addition of this postulate to A1–8, as Becker points out, allows us to “reduce” all complex modal functions to six, and these six are precisely those which Lewis mentions in his postulates and theorems: p, ∼p, ◊p, ∼◊p, ∼◊∼p, and ◊∼p This reduction is accomplished by showingwhere ◊n means that the modal operator ◊ is repeated n times; e.g., ◊3p = ◊◊◊p. Then it is shown thatBy means of (1), (2), and (3) any complex modal function whatsoever may be reduced to one of the six “simple” modals mentioned above.It might be asked whether this reduction could be carried out still further, i.e., whether two of the six “irreducible” modals could not be equated. But such a reduction would have to be based on the fact that ◊p = p which is inconsistent with the set B1–9 of Lewis and Langford's Symbolic logic and independent of the set A1–8. Hence for neither set would such a reduction be possible.

scholarly journals Tree Trimming: Four Non-Branching Rules for Priest’s Introduction to Non-Classical Logic

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilynn Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Classical Logic ◽  
Variable Domain ◽  
Free Logic ◽  
Intuitionist Logic ◽  
Branching Rule ◽  
Branching Rules ◽  
Graham Priest

In An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is Graham Priest (2008) presents branching rules in Free Logic, Variable Domain Modal Logic, and Intuitionist Logic. I propose a simpler, non-branching rule to replace Priest’s rule for universal instantiation in Free Logic, a second, slightly modified version of this rule to replace Priest’s rule for universal instantiation in Variable Domain Modal Logic, and third and fourth rules, further modifying the second rule, to replace Priest’s branching universal and particular instantiation rules in Intuitionist Logic. In each of these logics the proposed rule leads to tableaux with fewer branches. In Intuitionist logic, the proposed rules allow for the resolution of a particular problem Priest grapples with throughout the chapter. In this paper, I demonstrate that the proposed rules can greatly simplify tableaux and argue that they should be used in place of the rules given by Priest.

7. Deducing

2020 ◽  
pp. 74-88
Author(s):  
Timothy Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Classical Logic ◽  
Logical Inference ◽  
Disjunctive Syllogism ◽  
Philosophical Concept ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Excluded Middle

Detective work is an important tool in philosophy. ‘Deducing’ explains the difference between valid and sound arguments. An argument is valid if its premises are true but is only sound if the conclusion is true. The Greek philosophers identified disjunctive syllogism—the idea that if something is not one thing, it must be another. This relates to another philosophical concept, the ‘law of the excluded middle’. An abduction is a form of logical inference which attempts to find the most likely explanation. Modal logic, an extension of classical logic, is a popular branch of logic for philosophical arguments.

Modal logic, philosophical issues in

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. McKay
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Natural Language ◽  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Possible World ◽  
Modal Claim ◽  
Knowing That ◽  
Modal Semantics ◽  
Bull's Eye ◽  
Modal Systems ◽  
Richard Montague

In reasoning we often use words such as ‘necessarily’, ‘possibly’, ‘can’, ‘could’, ‘must’ and so on. For example, if we know that an argument is valid, then we know that it is necessarily true that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Modal logic starts with such modal words and the inferences involving them. The exploration of these inferences has led to a variety of formal systems, and their interpretation is now most often built on the concept of a possible world. Standard non-modal logic shows us how to understand logical words such as ‘not’, ‘and’ and ‘or’, which are truth-functional. The modal concepts are not truth-functional: knowing that p is true (and what ‘necessarily’ means) does not automatically enable one to determine whether ‘Necessarily p’ is true. (‘It is necessary that all people have been people’ is true, but ‘It is necessary that no English monarch was born in Montana’ is false, even though the simpler constituents – ‘All people have been people’ and ‘No English monarch was born in Montana’– are both true.) The study of modal logic has helped in the understanding of many other contexts for sentences that are not truth-functional, such as ‘ought’ (‘It ought to be the case that p’) and ‘believes’ (‘Alice believes that p’); and also in the consideration of the interaction between quantifiers and non-truth-functional contexts. In fact, much work in modern semantics has benefited from the extension of modal semantics introduced by Richard Montague in beginning the development of a systematic semantics for natural language. The framework of possible worlds developed for modal logic has been fruitful in the analysis of many concepts. For example, by introducing the concept of relative possibility, Kripke showed how to model a variety of modal systems: a proposition is necessarily true at a possible world w if and only if it is true at every world that is possible relative to w. To achieve a better analysis of statements of ability, Mark Brown adapted the framework by modelling actions with sets of possible outcomes. John has the ability to hit the bull’s-eye reliably if there is some action of John’s such that every possible outcome of that action includes John’s hitting the bull’s-eye. Modal logic and its semantics also raise many puzzles. What makes a modal claim true? How do we tell what is possible and what is necessary? Are there any possible things that do not exist (and what could that mean anyway)? Does the use of modal logic involve a commitment to essentialism? How can an individual exist in many different possible worlds?

New foundations for Lewis modal systems

1957 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. J. Lemmon
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Propositional Calculus ◽  
Modal System ◽  
New Foundations ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Classical Propositional Calculus ◽  
Modal Systems

The main aims of this paper are firstly to present new and simpler postulate sets for certain well-known systems of modal logic, and secondly, in the light of these results, to suggest some new or newly formulated calculi, capable of interpretation as systems of epistemic or deontic modalities. The symbolism throughout is that of [9] (see especially Part III, Chapter I). In what follows, by a Lewis modal system is meant a system which (i) contains the full classical propositional calculus, (ii) is contained in the Lewis system S5, (iii) admits of the substitutability of tautologous equivalents, (iv) possesses as theses the four formulae:We shall also say that a system Σ1 is stricter than a system Σ2, if both are Lewis modal systems and Σ1 is contained in Σ2 but Σ2 is not contained in Σ1; and we shall call Σ1absolutely strict, if it possesses an infinity of irreducible modalities. Thus, the five systems of Lewis in [5], S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5, are all Lewis modal systems by this definition; they are in an order of decreasing strictness from S1 to S5; and S1 and S2 alone are absolutely strict.

A proof-theoretic study of the correspondence of classical logic and modal logic

2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 1403-1414 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Kushida ◽  
M. Okada
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Classical Logic ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Transformation Method ◽  
Modal Operator ◽  
Theoretic Method ◽  
Barcan Formula ◽  
Theoretic Proof ◽  
Classical Predicate

AbstractIt 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.

The extensions of the modal logic K5

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Nagle ◽  
S. K. Thomason
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Classical Logic ◽  
Abstract Characterization ◽  
Propositional Modal Logic ◽  
Normal Logic ◽  
Countably Infinite ◽  
Infinite Set

Our purpose is to delineate the extensions (normal and otherwise) of the propositional modal logic K5. We associate with each logic extending K5 a finitary index, in such a way that properties of the logics (for example, inclusion, normality, and tabularity) become effectively decidable properties of the indices. In addition we obtain explicit finite axiomatizations of all the extensions of K5 and an abstract characterization of the lattice of such extensions.This paper refines and extends the Ph.D. thesis [2] of the first-named author, who wishes to acknowledge his debt to Brian F. Chellas for his considerable efforts in directing the research culminating in [2] and [3]. We also thank W. J. Blok and Gregory Cherlin for observations which greatly simplified the proofs of Theorem 3 and Corollary 10.By a logic we mean a set of formulas in the countably infinite set Var of propositional variables and the connectives ⊥, →, and □ (other connectives being used abbreviatively) which contains all the classical tautologies and is closed under detachment and substitution. A logic is classical if it is also closed under RE (from A↔B infer □A ↔□B) and normal if it is classical and contains □ ⊤ and □ (P → q) → (□p → □q). A logic is quasi-classical if it contains a classical logic and quasi-normal if it contains a normal logic. Thus a quasi-normal logic is normal if and only if it is classical, and if and only if it is closed under RN (from A infer □A).

Liberated Brouwerian Modal Logic

Dialogue ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 505-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles G. Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Modal Logics ◽  
Possible World ◽  
Modal Systems ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

In an attempt to “purify” logic of existential presuppositions, attention has recently focused on modal logics, where one usually assumes that at least one possible world exists. Systems very analogous to some of the standard modal systems have been developed which drop this presupposition. We will here treat the removal of the existential assumption from Brouwerian modal logic and discuss the relationship of the system so derived to other modal systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document