Post completeness in modal logic

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 711-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krister Segerberg
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
Modus Ponens ◽  
Proper Subset ◽  
Proper Extension ◽  
Image Position

Let ⊥, →, and □ be primitive, and let us have a countable supply of propositional letters. By a (modal) logic we understand a proper subset of the set of all formulas containing every tautology and being closed under modus ponens and substitution. A logic is regular if it contains every instance of □A ∧ □B ↔ □(A ∧ B) and is closed under the ruleA regular logic is normal if it contains □⊤. The smallest regular logic we denote by C (the same as Lemmon's C2), the smallest normal one by K. If L and L' are logics and L ⊆ L′, then L is a sublogic of L', and L' is an extension of L; properly so if L ≠ L'. A logic is quasi-regular (respectively, quasi-normal) if it is an extension of C (respectively, K).A logic is Post complete if it has no proper extension. The Post number, denoted by p(L), is the number of Post complete extensions of L. Thanks to Lindenbaum, we know thatThere is an obvious upper bound, too:Furthermore,.

The McKinsey axiom is not compact

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 1230-1238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoping Wang
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Modus Ponens ◽  
Intensional Logic ◽  
Normal System ◽  
Propositional Modal Logic ◽  
Modal Operators ◽  
Transformation Rules ◽  
Image Position ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
Infinite Set

The canonicity and compactness of the KM system are problems historically important in the development of our understanding of intensional logic (as explained in Goldblatt's paper, The McKinsey axiom is not canonical). The problems, however, were unsolved for years in modal logic. In the beginning of 1990, Goldblatt showed that KM is not canonical in The McKinsey axiom is not canonical. The remaining task is to solve the problem of the compactness of KM. In this paper we present a proof showing that the KM system is not compact.The symbols of the language of propositional modal logic are as follows:1. A denumerably infinite set of sentence letters, for example, {p0, P1, p2, …};2. The Boolean connectives &, ⋁, ¬, →, ↔ and parentheses;3. The modal operators L and M where M is defined as ¬L¬.The formation rules of well-formed propositional modal formulae are the formation rules of formulae in classic propositional logic plus the following rule:If A is a well-formed formula, so is LA.A normal modal system is a set of formulae that contains all tautologies and the formulaand is closed under the following transformation rules:Uniform substitution. If A is a theorem, so is every substitution-instance of A.Modus ponens. If A and A → B are theorems, so is B.Necessitation. If A is a theorem, so is LA.Let L be a normal system. Then a set S of formulae is L-consistent if and only if for any formula B, which is the conjunction of some formulae in S, B is not included in L. A set S of formulae is maximal if and only if for every formula A, S either contains A or contains ¬A. A set S of formulae is maximal L-consistent if and only if it is both maximal and L-consistent.

Isolated minima of the product of n linear forms

1953 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. S. Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Lower Bound ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
Linear Forms ◽  
Image Position

Letbe n linear forms with real coefficients and determinant Δ = ∥ aij∥ ≠ 0; and denote by M(X) the lower bound of | X1X2 … Xn| over all integer sets (u) ≠ (0). It is well known that γn, the upper bound of M(X)/|Δ| over all sets of forms Xi, is finite, and the value of γn has been determined when n = 2 and n = 3.

Extremely undecidable sentences

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Boolos
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
The Other ◽  
Propositional Modal Logic ◽  
Image Position

Let ‘ϕ’, ‘χ’, and ‘ψ’ be variables ranging over functions from the sentence letters P0, P1, … Pn, … of (propositional) modal logic to sentences of P(eano) Arithmetic), and for each sentence A of modal logic, inductively define Aϕ by[and similarly for other nonmodal propositional connectives]; andwhere Bew(x) is the standard provability predicate for PA and ⌈F⌉ is the PA numeral for the Gödel number of the formula F of PA. Then for any ϕ, (−□⊥)ϕ = −Bew(⌈⊥⌉), which is the consistency assertion for PA; a sentence S is undecidable in PA iff both and , where ϕ(p0) = S. If ψ(p0) is the undecidable sentence constructed by Gödel, then ⊬PA (−□⊥→ −□p0 & − □ − p0)ψ and ⊢PA(P0 ↔ −□⊥)ψ. However, if ψ(p0) is the undecidable sentence constructed by Rosser, then the situation is the other way around: ⊬PA(P0 ↔ −□⊥)ψ and ⊢PA (−□⊥→ −□−p0 & −□−p0)ψ. We call a sentence S of PA extremely undecidable if for all modal sentences A containing no sentence letter other than p0, if for some ψ, ⊬PAAψ, then ⊬PAAϕ, where ϕ(p0) = S. (So, roughly speaking, a sentence is extremely undecidable if it can be proved to have only those modal-logically characterizable properties that every sentence can be proved to have.) Thus extremely undecidable sentences are undecidable, but neither the Godel nor the Rosser sentence is extremely undecidable. It will follow at once from the main theorem of this paper that there are infinitely many inequivalent extremely undecidable sentences.

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.

Sublattices and Initial Segments of the Degrees of Unsolvability

1970 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Thomason
Keyword(s):  
Lower Bound ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
Lattice Theory ◽  
Initial Segment ◽  
Finite Lattice ◽  
Equivalence Relations ◽  
Finite Lattices ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability

In this paper we shall prove that every finite lattice is isomorphic to a sublattice of the degrees of unsolvability, and that every one of a certain class of finite lattices is isomorphic to an initial segment of degrees.Acknowledgment. I am grateful to Ralph McKenzie for his assistance in matters of lattice theory.1. Representation of lattices. The equivalence lattice of the set S consists of all equivalence relations on S, ordered by setting θ ≦ θ’ if for all a and b in S, a θ b ⇒ a θ’ b. The least upper bound and greatest lower bound in are given by the ⋃ and ⋂ operations:

Hamiltonian Circuits on the N-Cube

1975 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 759-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. H. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Hamiltonian Circuits ◽  
Image Position

The problem of finding bounds for the number h(n) of Hamiltonian circuits on the n-cube has been studied by several authors, (1), (2), (3). The best upper bound known is due to Larman (5) who proved that .In this paper we use a result of Nijenhuis and Wilf (4) on permanents of (0, 1)- matrices to show that for n≥5where τ, a and c are constants.

PROOF SYSTEMS FOR VARIOUS FDE-BASED MODAL LOGICS

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 720-747
Author(s):  
SERGEY DROBYSHEVICH ◽  
HEINRICH WANSING
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Axiom System ◽  
Modal Logics ◽  
Cut Elimination ◽  
Proof Systems ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Axiomatic Extension

AbstractWe present novel proof systems for various FDE-based modal logics. Among the systems considered are a number of Belnapian modal logics introduced in Odintsov & Wansing (2010) and Odintsov & Wansing (2017), as well as the modal logic KN4 with strong implication introduced in Goble (2006). In particular, we provide a Hilbert-style axiom system for the logic $BK^{\square - } $ and characterize the logic BK as an axiomatic extension of the system $BK^{FS} $. For KN4 we provide both an FDE-style axiom system and a decidable sequent calculus for which a contraction elimination and a cut elimination result are shown.

A Note on the Diameter of a Graph

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Bondy
Keyword(s):  
Shortest Path ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
Connected Graph ◽  
Maximum Distance ◽  
Image Position

The distance d(x, y) between vertices x, y of a graph G is the length of the shortest path from x to y in G. The diameter δ(G) of G is the maximum distance between any pair of vertices in G. i.e. δ(G) = max max d(x, y). In this note we obtain an upper boundx ε G y ε Gfor δ(G) in terms of the numbers of vertices and edges in G. Using this bound it is then shown that for any complement-connected graph G with N verticeswhere is the complement of G.

scholarly journals On Komlós’ tiling theorem in random graphs

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-127
Author(s):  
Rajko Nenadov ◽  
Nemanja Škorić
Keyword(s):  
Chromatic Number ◽  
Random Graph ◽  
Random Graphs ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
Minimum Degree ◽  
Arbitrary Graph ◽  
Spanning Subgraph ◽  
Delta G ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Vertex Disjoint

AbstractGiven graphs G and H, a family of vertex-disjoint copies of H in G is called an H-tiling. Conlon, Gowers, Samotij and Schacht showed that for a given graph H and a constant γ>0, there exists C>0 such that if $p \ge C{n^{ - 1/{m_2}(H)}}$ , then asymptotically almost surely every spanning subgraph G of the random graph 𝒢(n, p) with minimum degree at least $\delta (G) \ge (1 - \frac{1}{{{\chi _{{\rm{cr}}}}(H)}} + \gamma )np$ contains an H-tiling that covers all but at most γn vertices. Here, χcr(H) denotes the critical chromatic number, a parameter introduced by Komlós, and m2(H) is the 2-density of H. We show that this theorem can be bootstrapped to obtain an H-tiling covering all but at most $\gamma {(C/p)^{{m_2}(H)}}$ vertices, which is strictly smaller when $p \ge C{n^{ - 1/{m_2}(H)}}$ . In the case where H = K3, this answers the question of Balogh, Lee and Samotij. Furthermore, for an arbitrary graph H we give an upper bound on p for which some leftover is unavoidable and a bound on the size of a largest H -tiling for p below this value.

On modal logic with propositional quantifiers

1969 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. Bull
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Propositional Quantifiers ◽  
Image Position

I am interested in extending modal calculi by adding propositional quantifiers, given by the rules for quantifier introduction: provided that p does not occur free in A.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document