Studia Logica

, Volume 100, Issue 1–2, pp 17–30 | Cite as

The Ontology of Justifications in the Logical Setting

Article

Abstract

Justification Logic provides an axiomatic description of justifications and delegates the question of their nature to semantics. In this note, we address the conceptual issue of the logical type of justifications: we argue that justifications in the logical setting are naturally interpreted as sets of formulas which leads to a class of epistemic models that we call modular models. We show that Fitting models for Justification Logic naturally encode modular models and can be regarded as convenient pre-models of the former.

Keywords

Justification Logic Kripke models Fitting models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Artemov, S., Operational modal logic. Technical Report MSI 95–29, Cornell University, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artemov S.: ‘Explicit provability and constructive semantics’. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 7(1), 1–36 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artemov S.: ‘Justified common knowledge’. Theoretical Computer Science 357(1-3), 4–22 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Artemov S.: ‘The logic of justification’. The Review of Symbolic Logic 1(4), 477–513 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Artemov S., Nogina E.: ‘Introducing justification into epistemic logic’. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6), 1059–1073 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brezhnev V., Kuznets R.: ‘Making knowledge explicit: How hard it is’. Theoretical Computer Science 357(1–3), 23–34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dean W., Kurokawa H.: ‘From the Knowability Paradox to the existence of proofs’. Synthese 176(2), 177–225 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fitting M.: ‘The logic of proofs, semantically’. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 132(1), 1–25 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fitting M.: ‘A quantified logic of evidence’. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 152(1-3), 67–83 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fitting M.: ‘Realizations and LP’. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 161(3), 368–387 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krupski N.V.: ‘On the complexity of the reflected logic of proofs’. Theoretical Computer Science 357(1-3), 136–142 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuznets, R., Complexity issues in Justification Logic. Ph.D. thesis, CUNY Graduate Center, 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milnikel R.: ‘Derivability in certain subsystems of the Logic of Proofs is \({\Pi_{2}^{p}}\) -complete’. Annals of Pure and Applies Logic 145(3), 223–239 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mkrtychev, A., ‘Models for the Logic of Proofs’. In S. Adian and A. Nerode (eds.), Logical Foundations of Computer Science, 4th International Symposium, LFCS’97, Yaroslavl, Russia, July 6–12, 1997, Proceedings, volume 1234 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 1997, pp. 266–275.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pacuit, E., A note on some explicit modal logics. Technical Report PP-2006-29, University of Amsterdam. ILLC Publications, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Renne, B., Dynamic Epistemic Logic with Justification Ph.D. thesis, CUNY Graduate Center, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rubtsova N.: ‘On realization of S5-modality by evidence terms’. Journal of Logic and Computation 16(5), 671–684 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yavorskaya (Sidon) T.: ‘Interacting Explicit Evidence Systems’. Theory of Computing Systems 43(2), 272–293 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Center CUNYNew York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations