Skip to main content

Logics with Simple Constraints on Models

  • Chapter
Kripke’s Worlds

Part of the book series: Studies in Universal Logic ((SUL))

  • 1245 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter is about the model construction problem in some classes of models: models satisfying the conditions of reflexivity, seriality, symmetry, and combinations thereof. The corresponding logics are KT, KD, KB, KTB, and KDB. We also consider models whose accessibility relation is confluent (logic K.2) or is an equivalence relation (logic KT45, alias S5). While these conditions are only about a single relation, we also study properties involving two accessibility relations: inclusion and permutation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    So the hasNoSuccessor condition is only effective in subsequent applications of the Pos_deterministic1 rule: when some other ◊-formulas are added to the same node then hasNoSuccessor will make the Pos_deterministic1 rule fail. So it would for example succeed in closing the premodel for <> P & (<> ~P & Q). (Observe that parentheses are relevant: (<> P & <> ~P) & Q would not close.)

  2. 2.

    A variant of that theorem was first stated in [GHS06]. However, the condition on node creation (the last condition of Theorem 1) was too weak and is strengthened here.

  3. 3.

    We note in passing that the language of LoTREC contains an unmark action that erases marks and that is therefore not monotonic. However, we have banned it from this book, i.e., we suppose here that unmark is not part of the language.

References

  1. C. Areces and B. ten Cate. Hybrid logics. In P. Blackburn, J. van Benthem, and F. Wolter, editors, Handbook of Modal Logic, volume 3. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Fitting. Proof Methods for Modal and Intuitionistic Logics. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  3. D.M. Gabbay. Labelled Deductive Systems, volume 1. OUP, London, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  4. O. Gasquet, A. Herzig, and M. Sahade. Terminating modal tableaux with simple completeness proof. In G. Governatori, I. Hodkinson, and Y. Venema, editors, Advances in Modal Logic, volume 6, pages 167–186. King’s College Publications, London, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  5. W. Lenzen. Recent Work in Epistemic Logic. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  6. W. Lenzen. On the semantics and pragmatics of epistemic attitudes. In A. Laux and H. Wansing, editors, Knowledge and Belief in Philosophy and AI, pages 181–197. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Basel AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gasquet, O., Herzig, A., Said, B., Schwarzentruber, F. (2014). Logics with Simple Constraints on Models. In: Kripke’s Worlds. Studies in Universal Logic. Birkhäuser, Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8504-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics