Advertisement

Studia Logica

, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 41–66 | Cite as

IF Modal Logic and Classical Negation

  • Tero TulenheimoEmail author
Article
  • 191 Downloads

Abstract

The present paper provides novel results on the model theory of Independence friendly modal logic. We concentrate on its particularly well-behaved fragment that was introduced in Tulenheimo and Sevenster (Advances in Modal Logic, 2006). Here we refer to this fragment as ‘Simple IF modal logic’ (IFML s ). A model-theoretic criterion is presented which serves to tell when a formula of IFML s is not equivalent to any formula of basic modal logic (ML). We generalize the notion of bisimulation familiar from ML; the resulting asymmetric simulation concept is used to prove that IFML s is not closed under complementation. In fact we obtain a much stronger result: the only IFML s formulas admitting their classical negation to be expressed in IFML s itself are those whose truth-condition is in fact expressible in ML.

Keywords

Complementation Expressivity IF logic Independence Modal logic Slash logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andréka H., Németi I., van Benthem J.: Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 27, 217–274 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Areces C., Blackburn P., Marx M.: Hybrid logics: characterization, interpolation, and complexity. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66, 977–1010 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barwise J.: On branching quantifiers in English. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 47–80 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blackburn P., de Rijke M., Venema Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cameron P., Hodges W.: Some combinatorics of imperfect information. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66, 673–684 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grädel , E., Why are modal logics so robustly decidable? in G. Paun, G. Rozenberg , and A. Salomaa (eds.), Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science. Entering the 21st Century, World Scientific, Singapore, 2001, pp. 393–408.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hintikka J.: The Principles of Mathematics Revisited. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hintikka J.: No Scope for Scope?. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 515–544 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hintikka , J., and G. Sandu , Informational independence as a semantical phenomenon, in J. Fenstad, I. Frolov, and R. Hilpinen (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, number 8, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 571–589.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodges , W., Elementary predicate logic, in D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, number 1, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1983, pp. 1–131.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hodges W.: Compositional semantics for a language of imperfect information. Logic Journal of the IGPL 5, 539–563 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hodges , W., Logics of Imperfect Information: Why Sets of Assignments? in J. van Benthem, D.M. Gabbay, and B. Löwe (eds.), Interactive Logic, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2007, pp. 117–133.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hornstein N.: As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hyttinen , T., and T. Tulenheimo , Decidability of IF modal logic of perfect recall, in R. Schmidt, I. Pratt-Hartmann, M. Reynolds, and H. Wansing (eds.), Advances in Modal Logic, number 5, KCL Publications, London, 2005, pp. 111–131.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Immerman N.: Descriptive Complexity. Springer, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mann A.L., Sandu G., Sevenster M.: Independence-Friendly Logic: A Game-Theoretic Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rebuschi , M., and T. Tulenheimo , Between de dicto and de re: de objecto attitudes, The Philosophical Quarterly 61:828–838, 2011.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rothstein S.: Adverbial quantification over events. Natural Language Semantics 3, 1–31 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tulenheimo , T., On IF modal logic and its expressive power, in P. Balbiani, N.-Y. Suzuki, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev (eds.), Advances in Modal Logic, number 4, KCL Publications, London, 2003, pp. 475–498.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tulenheimo, T., Independence-Friendly Modal Logic: Studies in its Expressive Power and Theoretical Relevance, Ph.D. thesis, University of Helsinki, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tulenheimo T.: Hybrid logic meets IF modal logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 18, 559–591 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tulenheimo , T., and M. Sevenster , On modal logic, IF logic and IF modal logic, in G. Governatori, I. Hodkinson, and Y. Venema (eds.), Advances in Modal Logic, number 6, College Publications, London, 2006, pp. 481–501.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tulenheimo , T., and M. Sevenster , Approaches to independence friendly modal logic, in J. van Benthem, D. Gabbay, and B. Löwe (eds.), Interactive Logic, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2007, pp. 247–280.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vardi , M., Why is modal logic so robustly decidable? in Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models, Series in Discr. Math. & Theor. Comp. Science, number 31, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1998, pp. 149–184.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Väänänen J.: Dependence Logic: A New Approach to Independence Friendly Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS Research Unit “Savoirs, Textes, Langage”, Lille, France, Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Lille 3, Domaine Universitaire du “Pont de Bois”Villeneuve d’AscqFrance

Personalised recommendations