Studia Logica

, Volume 100, Issue 3, pp 517–543 | Cite as

Some Modifications of Carnap’s Modal Logic

  • Vít Punčochář


In this paper, Carnap’s modal logic C is reconstructed. It is shown that the Carnapian approach enables us to create some epistemic logics in a relatively straight-forward way. These epistemic modifications of C are axiomatized and one of them is compared with intuitionistic logic. At the end of the paper, some connections between this epistemic logic and Medvedev’s logic of finite problems and inquisitive semantics are shortly discussed.


Carnap Modal logic Epistemic logic Possible worlds 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blackburn, P., M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema, Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carnap R.: Modalities and Quantification. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 11, 34–64 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carnap, R., Meaning and Necessity. The University of Chicago Press, 1948.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chargov A., Zakharyaschev M.: Modal Logic. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciardelli, I., Inquisitive Semantics and Intermediate Logics. Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciardelli, I., and F. Roelofsen, Inquisitive Logic. In: D. Grossi, L. Kurzen, and F. Velazquez-Quesada (eds.), Logic and Interactive Rationality. Seminar’s yearbook 2009, Institute for Logic, Language, and Information, University of Amsterdam, 2010.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feys, R., Carnap on Modalities. In P. A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, Cambridge University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gödel, K., An Interpretation of the Intuitionistic Propositional Calculus. In S. Feferman et al. (eds.), Collected Works, vol. 1, New York, Claredon, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gottlob, G., Review of a Carnapian Extension of S5. In E. Orlowska (ed.), Logic at Work: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Helena Rasiowa, Physica Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grice, P., Logic and Conversation. In D. Davidson, and G. Harman (eds.), The Logic of Grammar, Encino, CA: Dickenson, 1975.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hendry H. E., Pokriefka M. L.: Carnapian Extension of S5. The Journal of Philosophical Logic 14, 111–128 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kolmogorov A. N.: Zur Deutung der intuitionistischen Logik. Mathematische Zeitschrift 35, 58–65 (1932)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Medvedev Y.: Finite Problems. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 3, 227–230 (1962)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miglioli P., Moscato U., Ornaghi M., Quazza S., Usberti G.: Some Results on Intermediate Constructive Logics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30, 543–562 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Punčcochář, V., ‘Sémantika některých neobvyklých modálních logik. Master Thesis, Charles University in Prague, 2009.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schurz, G., Rudolf Carnap’s Modal Logic. In W. Stelzner, and M. Stoeckler (eds.), Zwischen traditioneller und moderner Logik. Nichtklassische Anstze, Mentis, Paderborn, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomason S. K.: A New Representation of S5. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 14, 281–284 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArtsCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations