Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
  • Studia Logica
  • Journal Aims and Scope
  • Submit to this journal
Finite Frames Fail: How Infinity Works Its Way into the Semantics of Admissibility
Download PDF
Your article has downloaded

Similar articles being viewed by others

Slider with three articles shown per slide. Use the Previous and Next buttons to navigate the slides or the slide controller buttons at the end to navigate through each slide.

The Poset of All Logics III: Finitely Presentable Logics

31 August 2020

Ramon Jansana & Tommaso Moraschini

A brief history of Tarskian algebraic logic with new perspectives and innovations

06 July 2020

Tarek Sayed Ahmed

Pooling Modalities and Pointwise Intersection: Axiomatization and Decidability

17 March 2020

Frederik Van De Putte & Dominik Klein

Definable Operators on Stable Set Lattices

05 February 2020

Robert Goldblatt

Undecidability of First-Order Modal and Intuitionistic Logics with Two Variables and One Monadic Predicate Letter

17 July 2018

Mikhail Rybakov & Dmitry Shkatov

Double Negation Semantics for Generalisations of Heyting Algebras

25 May 2020

Rob Arthan & Paulo Oliva

Wright’s Strict Finitistic Logic in the Classical Metatheory: The Propositional Case

21 January 2023

Takahiro Yamada

Correspondence, Canonicity, and Model Theory for Monotonic Modal Logics

24 June 2020

Kentarô Yamamoto

Infinite Forcing and the Generic Multiverse

12 February 2019

Giorgio Venturi

Download PDF
  • Open Access
  • Published: 12 May 2016

Finite Frames Fail: How Infinity Works Its Way into the Semantics of Admissibility

  • Jeroen P. Goudsmit1 

Studia Logica volume 104, pages 1191–1204 (2016)Cite this article

  • 376 Accesses

  • 2 Citations

  • 1 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

Many intermediate logics, even extremely well-behaved ones such as IPC, lack the finite model property for admissible rules. We give conditions under which this failure holds. We show that frames which validate all admissible rules necessarily satisfy a certain closure condition, and we prove that this condition, in the finite case, ensures that the frame is of width 2. Finally, we indicate how this result is related to some classical results on finite, free Heyting algebras.

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

References

  1. Baker K. A.: Equational axioms for classes of Heyting algebras. Algebra Universalis 6(1), 105–120 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Balbes R., Horn A.: Injective and projective Heyting algebras. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 148(2), 549–559 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chagrov A., Zakharyaschev M.: Modal Logic, vol. 77 of Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Citkin A.: On admissible rules of intuitionistic propositional logic. Mathematics of the USSR-Sbornik 31(2), 279–288 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Citkin, A., On the recognition of admissibility of some rules in intuitionistic logic, in Vth All-Union Conference in Mathematical Logic, Novosibirsk, 1979, p. 162.

  6. de Jongh D. H. J., Troelstra A.S.: On the connection of partially ordered sets with some pseudo-Boolean algebras. Indagationes Mathematicae 28(3), 317–329 (1966)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fedorishin B. R., Ivanov V. S.: The finite model property with respect to admissibility for superintuitionistic logics. Siberian Advances in Mathematics 13(2), 56–65 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Friedman H.: One hundred and two problems in mathematical logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 40(2), 113–129 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ghilardi S.: Unification in intuitionistic logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 64(2), 859–880 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghilardi S.: Unification, finite duality and projectivity in varieties of Heyting algebras. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 127(1–3), 99–115 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goudsmit J. P.: Admissibility and refutation. Archive for Mathematical Logic 53(7–8), 779–808 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grigolia, R., Free and projective Heyting and monadic Heyting algebras, in U. Höhle and E. P. Klement (eds.), Non-classical Logics and Their Applications to Fuzzy Subsets, vol. 32 of Theory and Decision Library, Springer, Dordrecht, 1995, pp. 33–52.

  13. Iemhoff R.: On the admissible rules of intuitionistic propositional logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 66(1), 281–294 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Iemhoff R.: Intermediate logics and Visser’s rules. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 46(1), 65–81 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Iemhoff, R., A note on consequence relations, Logic Group Preprint Series 314, 2013.

  16. Mints G. E.: Derivability of admissible rules. Journal of Mathematical Sciences 6, 417–421 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rybakov V. V.: A criterion for admissibility of rules in the model system s4 and the intuitionistic logic. Algebra and Logic 23, 369–384 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rybakov V. V., Kiyatkin V. R., Oner T.: On finite model property for admissible rules. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 45(4), 505–520 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Skura T. F.: A complete syntactical characterization of the intuitionistic logic. Reports on Mathematical Logic 23, 75–80 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Troelstra, A. S., and D. van Dalen, Constructivism in Mathematics—An Introduction, vol. 121 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Jeroen P. Goudsmit

Authors
  1. Jeroen P. Goudsmit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeroen P. Goudsmit.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goudsmit, J.P. Finite Frames Fail: How Infinity Works Its Way into the Semantics of Admissibility. Stud Logica 104, 1191–1204 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-016-9672-1

Download citation

  • Received: 16 November 2014

  • Published: 12 May 2016

  • Issue Date: December 2016

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-016-9672-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Intermediate logics
  • Admissible rules
  • Finite model property
  • Projective Heyting algebras
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

Advertisement

Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips

Switch Edition
  • Academic Edition
  • Corporate Edition
  • Home
  • Impressum
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • California Privacy Statement
  • How we use cookies
  • Manage cookies/Do not sell my data
  • Accessibility
  • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Affiliate program

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.