Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 195, Issue 8, pp 3621–3650 | Cite as

Gamma graph calculi for modal logics

  • Minghui MaEmail author
  • Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
Article
First Online:

Abstract

We describe Peirce’s 1903 system of modal gamma graphs, its transformation rules of inference, and the interpretation of the broken-cut modal operator. We show that Peirce proposed the normality rule in his gamma system. We then show how various normal modal logics arise from Peirce’s assumptions concerning the broken-cut notation. By developing an algebraic semantics we establish the completeness of fifteen modal logics of gamma graphs. We show that, besides logical necessity and possibility, Peirce proposed an epistemic interpretation of the broken-cut modality, and that he was led to analyze constructions of knowledge in the style of epistemic logic.

Keywords

Gamma graphs Peirce Existential graphs Broken-cut operator Modal logic Epistemic logic 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the four anonymous reviewers of the present journal for comments. Earlier versions of the paper were presented by the second author at the Workshop on Existential Graphs held in Helsinki in August 2016, at the Charles S. Peirce International Centennial Congress held at the University of Massachusetts Lowell in July 2014, and at the Modalities and Modal Logic Conference held at the University of Copenhagen in May 2012. This paper is dedicated to Jay J. Zeman, who passed away just at the time of completion of the present paper.

References

  1. Bellucci, F., & Pietarinen, A.-V. (2016). Existential graphs as an instrument for logical analysis. Alpha, Review of Symbolic Logic, 9, 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caterina, G., & Gangle, R. (2010). Consequences of a diagrammatic representation of Paul Cohen’s forcing technique based on C. S. Peirce’s existential graphs. In L. Magnani (Ed.), Model-based reasoning in science and technology (pp. 429–443). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Floridi, L. (2006). The logic of being informed. Logique and Analyse, 196, 1–28.Google Scholar
  4. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief: An introduction to the logic of the two notions. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ma, M., & Pietarinen, A.-V. (2017a). Peirce’s sequent proofs of distributivity. In Ghosh, S., & Prasad, S. (Eds.), Logic and its applications: Proceedings of the 7th Indian logic conference, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 10119, pp. 168–183).Google Scholar
  6. Ma, M., & Pietarinen, A.-V. (2017b). Graphical sequent calculi for modal logics. In The 9th workshop on methods for modalities, electronic proceedings in theoretical computer science (pp. 91–103).Google Scholar
  7. Øhrstrøm, P. (1995). Graphs for time and modality. In P. Øhrstrøm & R. Hasle (Eds.), Temporal logic: From ancient ideas to artificial intelligence (pp. 320–343). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Peirce, C. S. (1865–1909). The logic notebook (R 339).Google Scholar
  9. Peirce, C. S. (1896–1906). [Notes on logical graphs]. Supplements (S-26, S-28, S-30, S-31).Google Scholar
  10. Peirce, C. S. (1900). Letter to Christine Ladd-Franklin, November 9 (R L 237).Google Scholar
  11. Peirce, C. S. (1903a). Lowell lectures. Lecture III (R 462, S-31).Google Scholar
  12. Peirce, C. S. (1903b). Lowell lectures. Lecture IV. Existential graphs, gamma part (R 467, R 470, S-31).Google Scholar
  13. Peirce, C. S. (1903c). Lowell lectures. Lecture V (R 468–470).Google Scholar
  14. Peirce, C. S. (1903d). Lowell lectures. Notes on graphs. Notebook (R 496).Google Scholar
  15. Peirce, C. S. (1903e). A syllabus of certain topics of logic. Boston: Alfred Mudge & Son. (R 478, 478(\(s\))).Google Scholar
  16. Peirce, C. S. (1904). Reason’s conscience. A practical treatise on the theory of discovery; considered as semeiotic (R 693a, R S-26).Google Scholar
  17. Peirce, C. S. (1906–7). (PAP) (R 293).Google Scholar
  18. Peirce, C. S. (1906a). On existential graphs as an instrument of logical research (R 470, 498–499, S-36).Google Scholar
  19. Peirce, C. S. (1906b). Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. Monist, 16, 492–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peirce, C. S. (1906c). Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. Draft versions (R 295/292b).Google Scholar
  21. Peirce, C. S. (1908). The bed-rock beneath pragmaticism (R 300).Google Scholar
  22. Peirce, C. S. (1910). Diversions of definitions (essays definitions) (R 650).Google Scholar
  23. Peirce, C. S. (1911a). Assurance through reasoning (R 669).Google Scholar
  24. Peirce, C. S. (1911b). Letter to Risteen: A diagrammatic syntax. December 6 (R L 376).Google Scholar
  25. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1966). The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce (C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. W. Burks, Eds.), (Vol. 8). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Cited as CP followed by volume and paragraph number).Google Scholar
  26. Peirce, C. S. (1966). Manuscripts in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin, Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1967, and in The Peirce Papers: A supplementary catalogue, Transactions of the C.S. Peirce Society 7 (1971): 37–57. (Cited as R followed by manuscript number and, when available, page number).Google Scholar
  27. Peirce, C. S. (1976). The new elements of mathematics by Charles S. Peirce. (C. Eisele, Ed), (Vol. 4). The Hague: Mouton. (Cited as NEM followed by volume and page number).Google Scholar
  28. Peirce, C. S. (1982-). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A chronological edition. (E. C. Moore, C. J. W. Kloesel, et al. Eds.), (Vol. 7). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Cited as W followed by volume and page number).Google Scholar
  29. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2001). Intentional identity revisited. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, 6, 144–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2006b). Signs of logic: Peircean themes on the philosophy of language, games, and communication. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2008a). The proof of pragmatism: Comments on Christopher Hookway. Cognitio, 9(1), 85–92.Google Scholar
  32. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2008b). Diagrammatic logic of existential graphs: A case study of commands. In G. Stapleton, J. Howse, & J. Lee (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5223, pp. 404–407). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2011a). Existential graphs: What the diagrammatic logic of cognition might look like. History and Philosophy of Logic, 32(3), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2011b). Moving pictures of thought II: Graphs, games, and pragmaticism’s proof. Semiotica, 186, 315–331.Google Scholar
  35. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2015a). Exploring the beta quadrant. Synthese, 192, 941–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2015b). Two papers on existential graphs by Charles S. Peirce: 1. Recent developments of existential graphs and their consequences for logic (MS 498, 499, 490, S-36, 1906), 2. Assurance through reasoning (MS 669, 670, 1911). Synthese, 92, 881–922.Google Scholar
  37. Pietarinen, A.-V., & Snellman, L. (2006a). On Peirce’s late proof of pragmaticism. In T. Aho & A.-V. Pietarinen (Eds.), Truth and games (Vol. 78, pp. 275–288). Helsinki: Acta Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
  38. Prior, A. N. (1957). Time and modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ramharter, E., & Gottschall, C. (2011). Peirce’s search for a graphical modal logic (propositional part). History and Philosophy of Logic, 32, 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roberts, D. D. (1973). The existential graphs of Charles S. Peirce. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  41. Serene, E. F. (1981). Anselm’s modal conceptions. In S. Knuuttila (Ed.), Reinforcing the great chain of being: Studies of the history of modal theories (pp. 117–163). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Zeman, J. (1964). The graphical logic of Charles S. Peirce. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  43. Zeman, J. (1967). A system of implicit quantification. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 32, 480–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Logic and CognitionSun Yat-Sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Chair of PhilosophyTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options