Studia Logica

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 171–210 | Cite as

First-Order Classical Modal Logic

Article

Abstract

The paper focuses on extending to the first order case the semantical program for modalities first introduced by Dana Scott and Richard Montague. We focus on the study of neighborhood frames with constant domains and we offer in the first part of the paper a series of new completeness results for salient classical systems of first order modal logic. Among other results we show that it is possible to prove strong completeness results for normal systems without the Barcan Formula (like FOL + K)in terms of neighborhood frames with constant domains. The first order models we present permit the study of many epistemic modalities recently proposed in computer science as well as the development of adequate models for monadic operators of high probability. Models of this type are either difficult of impossible to build in terms of relational Kripkean semantics [40].

We conclude by introducing general first order neighborhood frames with constant domains and we offer a general completeness result for the entire family of classical first order modal systems in terms of them, circumventing some well-known problems of propositional and first order neighborhood semantics (mainly the fact that many classical modal logics are incomplete with respect to an unmodified version of either neighborhood or relational frames). We argue that the semantical program that thus arises offers the first complete semantic unification of the family of classical first order modal logics.

Keywords

First-order modal logic neighborhood semantics general frames 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Alur, R., T. A. Henzinger, and O. Kupferman, ‘Alternating-time temporal logic’, in Compositionality: The Significant Difference, LNCS 1536, Springer, 1998, pp. 23-60.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Arló Costa, H., ‘Qualitative and Probabilistic Models of Full Belief’, Proceedings of Logic Colloquim'98, Lecture Notes on Logic 13, S. Buss, P. Hajek, P. Pudlak (eds.), ASL, A. K. Peters, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Arló Costa, H., ‘First order extensions of classical systems of modal logic’, Studia Logica 71:87–118, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Arló Costa, H., ‘Non-Adjunctive Inference and Classical Modalities’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (5-6):581–605, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Arló Costa, H., and E. Pacuit, ‘Free Quantified (Classical) Modal Logic: Varying Domains’, typescript CMU and ILLC-Amsterdam, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Arló Costa, H., and R. Parikh, ‘Conditional Probability and Defeasible Inference’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (1):97–119, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Bacharach, M. O. L., L.-A. Gérard Varet, P. Mongin, and H.S. Shin (eds.), Epistemic Logic and the Theory of Games and Decisions, Theory and Decision Library, Vol. 20, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Barcan (Marcus), R. C., ‘A functional calculus of First Order based on strict implication’, Journal of Symbolic Logic XI:1–16, 1946.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Barcan (Marcus), R. C., ‘The identity of individuals in a strict functional calculus of First Order’, Journal of Symbolic Logic XII:12–15, 1947.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Barcan Marcus, R. C., ‘Modalities and intensional languages,’ Synthese XIII, 4:303–322, 1961. Reprinted in Modalities: Philosophical Essays, Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Barcan Marcus, R. C., ‘Possibilia and Possible Worlds,’ in Modalities: Philosophical Essays, Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 189–213.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Barwise, J., and L. Moss, Vicious Circles: On the Mathematics of Non-Wellfounded Phenomena, C S L I Publications, February 1996.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Battigalli, P., and G. Bonanno, ‘Recentresults on belief, knowledge andthe epistemic foundations of game theory,’ Proceedings of Interactive Epistemology in Dynamic Games of Incomplete Information, Venice, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Benthem, J.F.A.K., van, ‘Two simple incomplete logics,’ Theoria 44:25–37, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Blackburn, P., M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema, Modal Logic, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, 58, Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Carnap, R., Meaning and Necessity; A study of semantics and modal logic, Second edition, Midway Reprint, Chicago, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Chellas, B. Modal logic an introduction, Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Corsi, G., ‘A Unified Completeness Theorem for Quantified Modal Logics’, J. Symb. Log. 67(4):1483–1510, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Cresswell, M. J., ‘In Defense of the Barcan Formula’, Logique et Analyse 135–6:271–282, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    De Finetti, B., Theory of Probability, Vol I, Wiley Classics Library, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Dubins, L.E., ‘Finitely additive conditional probabilities, conglomerability, and disintegrations,’ Ann. Prob. 3:89–99, 1975.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Fagin, R., J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Y. Vardi, Reasoning about knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Fitting, M., and R. Mendelsohn, First Order Modal Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Gabbay, D., Investigations in Modal and Tense Logics with Applications to Problems in Philosophy and Linguistics, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1976.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Gaifman, H., and M. Snir, ‘Probabilities Over Rich Languages, Testing and Randomness’, J. Symb. Log. 47 (3): 495–548, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Garson, J., ‘Unifying quantified modal logic’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (5–6):621–649, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Gerson, M., ‘The inadequacy of neighborhood semantics for modal logic’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 40 (2):141–8, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Garson, J., ‘Quantification in modal logic’, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, D. Gab-bay and F. Guenthner (eds.), vol II, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2nd edition, 2002, pp. 249–307.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Ghilardi, S., ‘Incompleteness results in Kripke semantics’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (2):517–538, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Gilio, A., ‘Probabilistic reasoning under coherence in System P’, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34:5–34, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Goldblatt, R., and E. Mares, ‘A General Semantics for Quantified Modal Logic’, Advances in Modal Logic, Volume 6, King's College Publisher, 2006.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Halpern, J., ‘Intransitivity and vagueness,’ Ninth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), 121–129, 2004.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Hansen, H. H., Monotonic modal logics, Master's thesis, ILLC, 2003.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Harsanyi, J., ‘Games of incomplete information played by Bayesian players, Parts I, II, III’, Management Science 14:159–182, 320–334, 486–502, 1967–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Hughes, G. E., and M. J. Cresswell, A new introduction to modal logic, Routledge, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Kyburg, H. E., Jr., ‘Probabilistic inference and non-monotonic inference,’ in R. D. Schachter, T. S. Evitt, L. N. Kanal, and J. F. Lemmer (eds.), Uncertaintyin Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier Science (North Holland), 1990.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Kyburg, H. E., Jr., and C. M. Teng, ‘The Logic of Risky Knowledge’, Proceedings of WoLLIC, Brazil, 2002.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Kracht, M., and F. Wolter, ‘Normal Monomodal Logics can simulate all others’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 64:99–138, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Kratzer, A. ‘Modality’, in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenossischen Forschung, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1991, pp. 639-650.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Kripke, S., ‘Semantical considerations on modal logics’, Acta Philosophica Fennica 16:83–94, 1963.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Lehmann, D., and M. Magidor, ‘What does a conditional base entails?’, Artificial Intelligence 55:1–60, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Levi, I., For the sake of the argument: Ramsey test conditionals, Inductive Inference, and Nonmonotonic reasoning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Linsky, B., and E. Zalta, ‘In Defense of the Simplest Quantified Modal Logic’, Philosophical Perspectives, 8 (Logic and Language), 431–458, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Montague, R., ‘Universal Grammar’, Theoria 36:373–98, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Parikh, R., ‘The logic of games and its applications’, in M. Karpinski and J. van Leeuwen (eds.), Topics in the Theory of Computation, Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 24, Elsevier, 1985.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Pauly, M., ‘A modal logic for coalitional power in games’, Journal of Logic and Computation 12 (1):149–166, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Scott, D., ‘Advice in modal logic’, in K. Lambert (ed.), Philosophical Problems in Logic, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel, 1970, pp. 143–73.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    Scott, D., and P. Krauss, ‘Assigning probability to logical formulas,’ in Hintikka and Suppes (eds.), Aspects of Inductive Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966, pp. 219–264.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Segerberg, K., An Essay in Classical Modal Logic, Number 13 in Filosofisska Studier. Uppsala Universitet, 1971.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    van Fraassen, B. C., ‘Fine-grained opinion, probability, and the logic of full belief’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, XXIV:349–77, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    Vardi M., ‘On Epistemic Logic and Logical Omniscience,’ in Y. Halpern (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge. Proceedings of the 1986 Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1986.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    Williamson, T., ‘Bare Possibilia,’ Erkenntnis 48:257–273, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCarnegie-Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Logic, Language and ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations